Even though there is no specific command in John’s Gospel concerning the need for baptism, it is significant that John’s Gospel is the only gospel which records that baptism was an important part of Jesus’ public ministry. In John 3:22, the author records that Jesus “baptized” a large number of people, so much so that his ministry of baptism began to eclipse the widely popular ministry of John the Baptist. Even though this verse records that Jesus “baptized,” John 4:2 records that Jesus did not actually baptize anyone himself; rather he authorized his disciples to perform baptism on his behalf. But even though Jesus did not personally conduct baptisms, it is clear from the Gospel of John that baptism in water was important in the ministry of Jesus. This aspect of Jesus’ ministry is something that we do not see in the Synoptics.
The meaning given to baptism in John’s Gospel is also worthy of consideration. Baptism is linked to discipleship in the sense that submission to Jesus’ baptism was the initial formal step by which a person became a disciple of Jesus. This is clear from the wording of John 4:1, which says that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples and John.” This link between baptism and discipleship is echoed in the theology of the Great Commission in Matt 28:19, where it is taught that disciples are formally “made” through baptism. Having been baptized, the disciple is then obligated to learn from his or her master, to follow his example (John 13:14–15), by keeping the master’s teaching (John 17:6), and obeying his commandments (Matt 28:20; John 15:10). By keeping the master’s commandments, the disciple remains in the master’s love (John 15:10).
There has been a great deal of debate over whether or not Jesus’ teaching concerning rebirth “by water and spirit” in John 3:5 is a reference to Christian baptism. It is best to take these words spoken by Jesus in his dialogue with Nicodemus as teaching about the need for conversion by the Holy Spirit, with water (as is usual in John’s Gospel) being a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, this metaphor lends itself to seeing a close connection between physical water and the Holy Spirit. The practice of Gentile proselyte baptism, in which Gentile converts to Judaism were considered to become like newborn children makes it quite likely that the word water would have conveyed the idea of baptism, or at least some kind of ceremonial washing, to a Jewish audience. Ezekiel 36:24–27 also connects the future work of the Spirit with the image of water sprinkled upon Israel in order to cleanse her from her uncleanness.
Since conversion or baptism by the Holy Spirit is paralleled in John 3:15–16, 18 with believing in Jesus, the obvious conclusion that must be drawn is that the new birth (i.e., baptism in the Holy Spirit) begins (for the adult convert) when one confesses faith in Jesus Christ. For the early church, the Christian confession of faith consisted of a public confession of belief in Jesus as Messiah using the formula (in a Jewish context) I believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31), or I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37), which became in a Gentile context the confession that Jesus is Lord (Rom 10:9). The practice of the early church was that a person’s confession of faith in Jesus would be formally sealed in the act of baptism, which was performed immediately upon confession of faith. The book of Acts records no less than nine instances of converts being baptized immediately (or “at once” according to Acts 16:33) upon confession of faith. These are: the 3,000 converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:38,41); the Samaritans (8:12); the Ethiopian eunuch (8:37–38); the Apostle Paul (9:18; 22:16); the first Gentile converts (10:47–48); Lydia (16:14–15); the Philippian jailer (16:31–33); the Corinthians (18:8); and the twelve disciples of John the Baptist (19:3–5). This indicates that the early church thought of baptism as an integral part of conversion (hence, Peter could teach in 1 Pet 3:21 that “baptism … saves you”). Furthermore, it was the belief of the early church that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit was ordinarily received through Christian baptism (Acts 2:38, 41; 5:32; 19:2; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5), following the model of Jesus’ baptism, in which there was a conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21–22). Exceptions to the rule of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism only happened at special stages in God’s plan of salvation, such as at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4) and upon the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17) and the first Gentiles (Acts 10:44–48).
Because this concept of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism was prevalent in the early church, it is most likely that John’s Christian audience, and non-Christians acquainted with Christian religious practices, would have understood the phrase of water and spirit as having some kind of link with Christian baptism. Thus, Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 can be understood as an implied call for non-believers to convert to Christianity, i.e., to be baptized and to become disciples of Jesus Christ, similar to the teaching of the early church that is recorded in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
In sum, it is best to take the primary reference of the words of water and spirit on the lips of Jesus as referring to conversion by the Spirit, but at the same time this implies the necessity of Christian baptism, because baptism in water and the Spirit were ordinarily viewed in the early church as happening together as part of the process of conversion.
03 November 2010
31 October 2010
The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Gospel of John
The issue of the sacraments in the Gospel of John has received a lot of attention in Christian scholarship. Some scholars have even argued “that John was written to oppose people who gave too much place to the sacraments or those who gave too little place to them” (Leon Morris, “John, Gospel according to” in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 2:1107). There has also been debate over whether or not John 3 refers to baptism, and whether or not John 6 refers to the eucharist. The extent of this debate is rather remarkable considering that, as C. K. Barrett has noted, “the Fourth [Gospel] contains no specific command of Jesus to baptize, and no account of the institution of the eucharist” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text [2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978], 82).
I agree with Don Carson that John’s Gospel “is neither sacramentarian nor anti–sacramentarian” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, [Leicester: IVP, 1991], 99). Carson views these categories as being inappropriate, and he is right to do so, but he argues this on the basis that the language of the Gospel “drives people to the reality, to Christ himself, refusing to stop at that which points to the reality” (ibid.).
The problem with Carson’s argument at this point is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper (in Reformed tradition at least) are not merely signs that point to Christ; they are signs that actually communicate the reality of Christ. Furthermore, while it is true that the Gospel of John is primarily a call for people to be committed to Christ and his teaching, given that early church placed great importance on baptism and the eucharist, it is highly unlikely that John and his readers would not have drawn connections between Jesus’ teaching in John 3, 6 and the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist. The book of Acts shows that baptism was treated as an integral part of the gospel (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:36), and that the eucharist was an important activity in Christian worship and fellowship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7).
Furthermore, if it is accepted that John’s Gospel was written with an evangelistic purpose in mind (primarily for confirming the belief of Christians, and secondarily to promote the conversion of unbelievers), then the issues of baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper would naturally be present by way of implication. These were the key rites that defined initiation and continuation respectively in the Christian community.
It is valid, therefore, to allow for a deeper significance to Jesus’ words in John 3 and John 6 in the context of John’s day, where Christians (and possibly some non-Christians) would have understood Jesus’ teaching in these chapters in the context of the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist, allowing them to draw connections between Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel and Christian doctrine regarding the sacraments. I will pursue some of these connections in my next couple of posts.
I agree with Don Carson that John’s Gospel “is neither sacramentarian nor anti–sacramentarian” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, [Leicester: IVP, 1991], 99). Carson views these categories as being inappropriate, and he is right to do so, but he argues this on the basis that the language of the Gospel “drives people to the reality, to Christ himself, refusing to stop at that which points to the reality” (ibid.).
The problem with Carson’s argument at this point is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper (in Reformed tradition at least) are not merely signs that point to Christ; they are signs that actually communicate the reality of Christ. Furthermore, while it is true that the Gospel of John is primarily a call for people to be committed to Christ and his teaching, given that early church placed great importance on baptism and the eucharist, it is highly unlikely that John and his readers would not have drawn connections between Jesus’ teaching in John 3, 6 and the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist. The book of Acts shows that baptism was treated as an integral part of the gospel (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:36), and that the eucharist was an important activity in Christian worship and fellowship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7).
Furthermore, if it is accepted that John’s Gospel was written with an evangelistic purpose in mind (primarily for confirming the belief of Christians, and secondarily to promote the conversion of unbelievers), then the issues of baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper would naturally be present by way of implication. These were the key rites that defined initiation and continuation respectively in the Christian community.
It is valid, therefore, to allow for a deeper significance to Jesus’ words in John 3 and John 6 in the context of John’s day, where Christians (and possibly some non-Christians) would have understood Jesus’ teaching in these chapters in the context of the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist, allowing them to draw connections between Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel and Christian doctrine regarding the sacraments. I will pursue some of these connections in my next couple of posts.
25 October 2010
The Concept of Light and Darkness in John's Gospel
Consistent with the Old Testament teaching on light and darkness outlined in my previous post “The Old Testament Background to the Concept of Light and Darkness in John’s Gospel”, the Gospel of John clearly identifies Jesus of Nazareth as being the spiritual light of the universe.
For John, Jesus is “the light of humanity” (John 1:4). The allusions in John 1:1–5 to Gen 1 (“in the beginning” in vv. 1–2; “word” in vv. 1–2; the act of creation in v. 3; life in v. 4; light and darkness in vv. 4–5) suggest that just as the word of God brought about the existence of physical light at the beginning of the history of the world, in a similar way the Word of God (who is Jesus) is the spiritual light that brings safety and life into our world of darkness (John 1:4). By Jesus coming into the world, his light has shone into the darkness; and wherever his light has reached, there the darkness has irresistably been overcome (John 1:5). At the same time, however, there are evildoers who love the darkness rather than the light, who as a consequence refuse to come to the light (John 3:19–20). In the original context, this is a reference to those Jews who were viewed as having broken the covenant with God. On the other hand, those (Israelites) who do the truth (i.e., who are committed to the covenant with God) come to the light of Christ in order to show the genuine value of their obedience to God under the Mosaic covenant (John 3:21).
John’s Gospel strongly promotes the idea that Jesus is “the true light who illuminates all people” (John 1:9). Jesus has shone in the world in order to enlighten people, regardless of nationality. He has “come as a light into the world, in order that everyone who believes in him might not abide in the darkness” (John 12:46). Thus, Jesus himself claimed to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Following Jesus and his teaching is to avoid “walk[ing] in the darkness,” and results in a person experiencing “the light of life” (John 8:12). It is important to walk in the daytime rather than at night. Walking in the daylight is equated with seeing “the light of this world,” the benefit being the avoidance of stumbling (John 11:9–10). Consistent with the use of this imagery in the Old Testament, the person “who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going” (John 12:35). The danger with not seeing where you are going is that you will stumble so as to fall away from the pathway of salvation. Jesus viewed his earthly ministry as the short period of time (“a little while”) in which “the light is among you” (John 12:35; see also John 9:5). He called upon the Jews of his day to “believe in the light” while the light was still among them, “in order that you might become sons of light” (John 12:36). Rejecting the light would result in the Jewish nation being overtaken by darkness (John 12:35).
John’s Gospel is also concerned to make the point that John the Baptist, when compared with Jesus, is definitely “not the light”; instead, he only bore testimony concerning the light (John 1:8). At the same time, however, Jesus acknowledges that John the Baptist was “a lamp that burns and shines,” and that the Jews “were willing for a time to rejoice in his light” (John 5:35). John the Baptist was a light, but not the light. The “true light” who came into the world, “who illuminates all people,” is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. In him the Old Testament prophetic expectation of the coming of the glory of Yahweh has been fulfilled.
For John, Jesus is “the light of humanity” (John 1:4). The allusions in John 1:1–5 to Gen 1 (“in the beginning” in vv. 1–2; “word” in vv. 1–2; the act of creation in v. 3; life in v. 4; light and darkness in vv. 4–5) suggest that just as the word of God brought about the existence of physical light at the beginning of the history of the world, in a similar way the Word of God (who is Jesus) is the spiritual light that brings safety and life into our world of darkness (John 1:4). By Jesus coming into the world, his light has shone into the darkness; and wherever his light has reached, there the darkness has irresistably been overcome (John 1:5). At the same time, however, there are evildoers who love the darkness rather than the light, who as a consequence refuse to come to the light (John 3:19–20). In the original context, this is a reference to those Jews who were viewed as having broken the covenant with God. On the other hand, those (Israelites) who do the truth (i.e., who are committed to the covenant with God) come to the light of Christ in order to show the genuine value of their obedience to God under the Mosaic covenant (John 3:21).
John’s Gospel strongly promotes the idea that Jesus is “the true light who illuminates all people” (John 1:9). Jesus has shone in the world in order to enlighten people, regardless of nationality. He has “come as a light into the world, in order that everyone who believes in him might not abide in the darkness” (John 12:46). Thus, Jesus himself claimed to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Following Jesus and his teaching is to avoid “walk[ing] in the darkness,” and results in a person experiencing “the light of life” (John 8:12). It is important to walk in the daytime rather than at night. Walking in the daylight is equated with seeing “the light of this world,” the benefit being the avoidance of stumbling (John 11:9–10). Consistent with the use of this imagery in the Old Testament, the person “who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going” (John 12:35). The danger with not seeing where you are going is that you will stumble so as to fall away from the pathway of salvation. Jesus viewed his earthly ministry as the short period of time (“a little while”) in which “the light is among you” (John 12:35; see also John 9:5). He called upon the Jews of his day to “believe in the light” while the light was still among them, “in order that you might become sons of light” (John 12:36). Rejecting the light would result in the Jewish nation being overtaken by darkness (John 12:35).
John’s Gospel is also concerned to make the point that John the Baptist, when compared with Jesus, is definitely “not the light”; instead, he only bore testimony concerning the light (John 1:8). At the same time, however, Jesus acknowledges that John the Baptist was “a lamp that burns and shines,” and that the Jews “were willing for a time to rejoice in his light” (John 5:35). John the Baptist was a light, but not the light. The “true light” who came into the world, “who illuminates all people,” is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. In him the Old Testament prophetic expectation of the coming of the glory of Yahweh has been fulfilled.
19 October 2010
The Old Testament Background to the Concept of Light and Darkness in John's Gospel
Light and darkness make up one of the conspicuous dualisms that are found in John’s Gospel. The source of such dualism in John is not Gnosticism or Greek philosophy, but the concept of light and darkness in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, in order to understand John’s concept of light and darkness, we need to consider the Old Testament background to this idea.
Consistent with the characterization of light and darkness in many cultures, in the Old Testament light is a positive concept, whereas darkness is primarily negative (Isa 5:20). In Gen 1, darkness is associated with disorder and emptiness. The default state of the world is darkness, but the word of God brings light into the world (Gen 1:3; see also Isa 42:16). Darkness can be associated with the presence of God in the sense that the thickness of his glory cloud can prevent light from penetrating (Exod 14:20; 20:21; Deut 4:11; 5:22–23; 1 Kgs 8:12; Ps 18:9, 11; 97:2), and in the sense that God is the creator of (physical and metaphorical) darkness (Isa 45:7; Amos 4:13); but overall Yahweh is a God who dwells in glorious light (Exod 27:20; Ps 104:1–2; Ezek 1:27–28). He is the light of the righteous (Ps 27:1). His light gives light to his people (Ps 36:9; see also Ps 56:13; 97:11). Light shines from his face (Ps 44:3; 89:15). To the righteous, his word “is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Ps 119:105; see also Ps 119:130; Prov 6:23).
Darkness is usually a sign of God’s judgment (Exod 10:21–23; Ps 105:28; Ezek 32:8; Joel 2:2, 31; Amos 5:18, 20; Nah 1:8; Zeph 1:15). The covenant curse of military defeat for Israel will see darkness covering the land (Isa 5:30; 8:22). The exile is pictured as a time of darkness (Jer 13:16). Darkness is also associated with death (Ps 107:10, 14; Prov 20:20). It is the ultimate abode of the wicked (1 Sam 2:9). There is no light in Sheol, the place of the dead (Ps 49:19). From the ethical perspective of the Old Testament, the problem with darkness is that it does not allow you to see where you are going. Darkness is dangerous. You cannot see the spiritual obstacles that would bring you down, which means that you can easily end up stumbling off the pathway that leads to life (Prov 4:19; Isa 59:10; Jer 23:12). To forsake the paths of uprightness is to walk in darkness (Prov 2:13). Evildoers hide in the darkness (Job 34:22). The righteous can also experience darkness (Isa 50:10; 59:9; Lam 3:2), but in the end light will shine upon the upright (Ps 112:4). Yahweh is a lamp who shines his light into the darkness experienced by the righteous (2 Sam 22:29; see also Mic 7:8–9). Repentance will result in the light dawning upon the darkness of Israel such that even her gloom will be as bright as noon (Isa 58:8, 10).
The eschatological coming of Yahweh is pictured in the Old Testament as the light of the glory of God that comes to push back and to overcome the darkness of this world. Yahweh will arise, and his glory will shine upon Israel, and be a beacon that will attract the nations (Isa 60:1–3). Emmanuel, the child of the young (virgin) woman (Isa 7:14), who is “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6), will come as “a great light” shining in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isa 9:1–2); and the Suffering Servant will be “a light for the Gentiles” (Isa 42:6; see also Isa 49:6; 51:4–5). In this way, the day of salvation will bring light to the blind (Isa 29:18; 42:7); the prisoners will be released from darkness (Isa 49:9); and the glory of Yahweh will become an everlasting light, so bright that the sun will be made redundant, its brilliance being eternally eclipsed by the utter magnificence of the glory of God (Isa 60:19–20).
Consistent with the characterization of light and darkness in many cultures, in the Old Testament light is a positive concept, whereas darkness is primarily negative (Isa 5:20). In Gen 1, darkness is associated with disorder and emptiness. The default state of the world is darkness, but the word of God brings light into the world (Gen 1:3; see also Isa 42:16). Darkness can be associated with the presence of God in the sense that the thickness of his glory cloud can prevent light from penetrating (Exod 14:20; 20:21; Deut 4:11; 5:22–23; 1 Kgs 8:12; Ps 18:9, 11; 97:2), and in the sense that God is the creator of (physical and metaphorical) darkness (Isa 45:7; Amos 4:13); but overall Yahweh is a God who dwells in glorious light (Exod 27:20; Ps 104:1–2; Ezek 1:27–28). He is the light of the righteous (Ps 27:1). His light gives light to his people (Ps 36:9; see also Ps 56:13; 97:11). Light shines from his face (Ps 44:3; 89:15). To the righteous, his word “is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Ps 119:105; see also Ps 119:130; Prov 6:23).
Darkness is usually a sign of God’s judgment (Exod 10:21–23; Ps 105:28; Ezek 32:8; Joel 2:2, 31; Amos 5:18, 20; Nah 1:8; Zeph 1:15). The covenant curse of military defeat for Israel will see darkness covering the land (Isa 5:30; 8:22). The exile is pictured as a time of darkness (Jer 13:16). Darkness is also associated with death (Ps 107:10, 14; Prov 20:20). It is the ultimate abode of the wicked (1 Sam 2:9). There is no light in Sheol, the place of the dead (Ps 49:19). From the ethical perspective of the Old Testament, the problem with darkness is that it does not allow you to see where you are going. Darkness is dangerous. You cannot see the spiritual obstacles that would bring you down, which means that you can easily end up stumbling off the pathway that leads to life (Prov 4:19; Isa 59:10; Jer 23:12). To forsake the paths of uprightness is to walk in darkness (Prov 2:13). Evildoers hide in the darkness (Job 34:22). The righteous can also experience darkness (Isa 50:10; 59:9; Lam 3:2), but in the end light will shine upon the upright (Ps 112:4). Yahweh is a lamp who shines his light into the darkness experienced by the righteous (2 Sam 22:29; see also Mic 7:8–9). Repentance will result in the light dawning upon the darkness of Israel such that even her gloom will be as bright as noon (Isa 58:8, 10).
The eschatological coming of Yahweh is pictured in the Old Testament as the light of the glory of God that comes to push back and to overcome the darkness of this world. Yahweh will arise, and his glory will shine upon Israel, and be a beacon that will attract the nations (Isa 60:1–3). Emmanuel, the child of the young (virgin) woman (Isa 7:14), who is “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6), will come as “a great light” shining in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isa 9:1–2); and the Suffering Servant will be “a light for the Gentiles” (Isa 42:6; see also Isa 49:6; 51:4–5). In this way, the day of salvation will bring light to the blind (Isa 29:18; 42:7); the prisoners will be released from darkness (Isa 49:9); and the glory of Yahweh will become an everlasting light, so bright that the sun will be made redundant, its brilliance being eternally eclipsed by the utter magnificence of the glory of God (Isa 60:19–20).
11 October 2010
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is packed full with important teaching about the Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel presents Jesus’ coming as being the key event for the accomplishment of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that had been prophesied about by the Old Testament prophets.
The view of the Holy Spirit presented in John’s Gospel fully accords with the teaching of the Old Testament in this regard. According to the Old Testament, all life whether physical or spiritual is a product of God’s Spirit (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37:14). John’s Gospel teaches that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). The Spirit is “living water” (John 4:10). Those who drink of the Spirit live eternally (John 4:14). Rebirth by the Spirit is necessary for entering the kingdom of God (John 3:5), and for experiencing eternal life and immortality (John 3:6). In the new covenant age, this Spiritual rebirth is no longer limited to the traditional Israelite lines of covenant membership, but is open to people of all nations (John 3:8; 4:21, 23).
John’s Gospel presupposes the Old Testament teaching concerning the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament describes the old covenant age as a time in which there was a limited work of God’s Spirit writing the law on the heart. During the old covenant age, God’s law was not written in the hearts of the majority of the people of Israel. This meant that the nation of Israel viewed as a whole did not walk in the way of God’s law, thereby breaking the covenant with God. This led to the covenant curses coming down upon Israel, culminating in the exile to Babylon. Even though God had allowed the Jews to come back to Judea after the exile, the time of covenant blessing had not yet come. The Old Testament looked forward, therefore, to a new age when God would pour out his Spirit upon Israel and all flesh. This eschatological work of the Holy Spirit would result in Israel returning to God in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27).
As Jer 31:31–33 and Ezek 36:25–28 make known, the coming of the new covenant age would mark the beginning of a transformation in the comprehensiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the limited work of the Spirit under the old covenant (which led to the covenant failure and exile of Israel among the nations), the Holy Spirit would be poured out in a greater way such that the hearts of the people of Israel would be changed, with the result that Israel would return to God in true worship and obedience and, as a result, begin to experience covenant blessing instead of covenant curse.
John’s Gospel is concerned to link this Old Testament prophetic expectation of the eschatological gift of the Spirit with the ministry of Jesus. The Old Testament prophets understood that the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit would come about through the ministry of the Messiah (e.g., Isa 11:1–5; 44:1–5; and 55:1–4), through the work of the Spirit-filled suffering Servant (e.g., Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–6; 61:1–4). John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as being none other than this Spirit-filled suffering Servant-Messiah who has come into the world to accomplish the promised eschatological outpouring of the Spirit of life.
Thus, Jesus is presented in John’s Gospel as being the one upon whom the Holy Spirit descended and upon whom the Holy Spirit remains (John 1:32). Jesus has received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Following the more likely interpretation of John 7:38, “rivers of living water” flow from within the Messiah, who is himself the eschatological temple, bringing life and blessing to the world, in fulfillment of Ezek 47:1–10. Because Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah and Spirit-filled Servant, he is the person who would (after his glorification) baptize people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). He gives the living water of the Spirit to those who ask of him (John 4:10, 14). But only those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah can receive this gift (John 7:37–39). In other words, the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit is performed by Jesus. The Spirit proceeds from God the Father, but would be sent by Jesus to dwell within his disciples (John 14:17; 15:26). The Spirit would be given to those who love Jesus and who keep his word (John 14:23), but not to the unregenerate people of the world (John 14:17). Jesus’ disciples would see the Spirit and know him (John 14:17). The Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This eschatological outpouring of the Spirit, however, would not take place until after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39). In God’s plan, the comprehensive outpouring of the Spirit was reserved for the new covenant age, which would be inaugurated through the death and resurrection of Christ.
The coming of the Spirit would be beneficial for Jesus’ disciples in a number of ways. The Spirit would be their Paraklete, their Helper. He would mediate to Jesus’ disciples the presence of the Father and the Son (John 14:21, 23). As the Spirit of truth, he would help God’s people worship God in the proper way (John 4:23–24). He would also guide Jesus’ disciples into all truth (John 16:13), reminding them of Jesus’ teaching (John 14:26), and testifying about Jesus to them (John 15:26). He would receive revelation from Jesus to pass on to Jesus’ disciples (John 16:13–15).
The teaching in John’s Gospel about the Holy Spirit is concluded in 20:22 when Jesus breathes upon his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” There has been some discussion on the relationship of this incident with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, but it is probably best to understand this as a prophetic action on the part of Jesus intended to convey the important truth that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit—which would be poured out after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39), i.e., after his resurrection and ascension—would be mediated through Jesus himself, and also that the gift of the Spirit to be received by his disciples would be a sharing in the Spirit of Christ himself.
Overall, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John is very comprehensive. However, it cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the need for the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit which emerges from the story of the covenant rebellion of Israel in the Old Testament.
The view of the Holy Spirit presented in John’s Gospel fully accords with the teaching of the Old Testament in this regard. According to the Old Testament, all life whether physical or spiritual is a product of God’s Spirit (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37:14). John’s Gospel teaches that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). The Spirit is “living water” (John 4:10). Those who drink of the Spirit live eternally (John 4:14). Rebirth by the Spirit is necessary for entering the kingdom of God (John 3:5), and for experiencing eternal life and immortality (John 3:6). In the new covenant age, this Spiritual rebirth is no longer limited to the traditional Israelite lines of covenant membership, but is open to people of all nations (John 3:8; 4:21, 23).
John’s Gospel presupposes the Old Testament teaching concerning the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament describes the old covenant age as a time in which there was a limited work of God’s Spirit writing the law on the heart. During the old covenant age, God’s law was not written in the hearts of the majority of the people of Israel. This meant that the nation of Israel viewed as a whole did not walk in the way of God’s law, thereby breaking the covenant with God. This led to the covenant curses coming down upon Israel, culminating in the exile to Babylon. Even though God had allowed the Jews to come back to Judea after the exile, the time of covenant blessing had not yet come. The Old Testament looked forward, therefore, to a new age when God would pour out his Spirit upon Israel and all flesh. This eschatological work of the Holy Spirit would result in Israel returning to God in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27).
As Jer 31:31–33 and Ezek 36:25–28 make known, the coming of the new covenant age would mark the beginning of a transformation in the comprehensiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the limited work of the Spirit under the old covenant (which led to the covenant failure and exile of Israel among the nations), the Holy Spirit would be poured out in a greater way such that the hearts of the people of Israel would be changed, with the result that Israel would return to God in true worship and obedience and, as a result, begin to experience covenant blessing instead of covenant curse.
John’s Gospel is concerned to link this Old Testament prophetic expectation of the eschatological gift of the Spirit with the ministry of Jesus. The Old Testament prophets understood that the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit would come about through the ministry of the Messiah (e.g., Isa 11:1–5; 44:1–5; and 55:1–4), through the work of the Spirit-filled suffering Servant (e.g., Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–6; 61:1–4). John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as being none other than this Spirit-filled suffering Servant-Messiah who has come into the world to accomplish the promised eschatological outpouring of the Spirit of life.
Thus, Jesus is presented in John’s Gospel as being the one upon whom the Holy Spirit descended and upon whom the Holy Spirit remains (John 1:32). Jesus has received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Following the more likely interpretation of John 7:38, “rivers of living water” flow from within the Messiah, who is himself the eschatological temple, bringing life and blessing to the world, in fulfillment of Ezek 47:1–10. Because Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah and Spirit-filled Servant, he is the person who would (after his glorification) baptize people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). He gives the living water of the Spirit to those who ask of him (John 4:10, 14). But only those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah can receive this gift (John 7:37–39). In other words, the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit is performed by Jesus. The Spirit proceeds from God the Father, but would be sent by Jesus to dwell within his disciples (John 14:17; 15:26). The Spirit would be given to those who love Jesus and who keep his word (John 14:23), but not to the unregenerate people of the world (John 14:17). Jesus’ disciples would see the Spirit and know him (John 14:17). The Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This eschatological outpouring of the Spirit, however, would not take place until after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39). In God’s plan, the comprehensive outpouring of the Spirit was reserved for the new covenant age, which would be inaugurated through the death and resurrection of Christ.
The coming of the Spirit would be beneficial for Jesus’ disciples in a number of ways. The Spirit would be their Paraklete, their Helper. He would mediate to Jesus’ disciples the presence of the Father and the Son (John 14:21, 23). As the Spirit of truth, he would help God’s people worship God in the proper way (John 4:23–24). He would also guide Jesus’ disciples into all truth (John 16:13), reminding them of Jesus’ teaching (John 14:26), and testifying about Jesus to them (John 15:26). He would receive revelation from Jesus to pass on to Jesus’ disciples (John 16:13–15).
The teaching in John’s Gospel about the Holy Spirit is concluded in 20:22 when Jesus breathes upon his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” There has been some discussion on the relationship of this incident with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, but it is probably best to understand this as a prophetic action on the part of Jesus intended to convey the important truth that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit—which would be poured out after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39), i.e., after his resurrection and ascension—would be mediated through Jesus himself, and also that the gift of the Spirit to be received by his disciples would be a sharing in the Spirit of Christ himself.
Overall, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John is very comprehensive. However, it cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the need for the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit which emerges from the story of the covenant rebellion of Israel in the Old Testament.
02 October 2010
The Sabbath Commandment as a Hermeneutical Guide for Understanding the Seven Day Structure of Genesis 1:1–2:3
The length of the days in Gen 1 has been the subject of much debate, particularly over the last 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. In the light of this debate, it is interesting to think about how Gen 1 would be understood from the point of view of the implied reader or listener of the text, which I take in the first instance to be a Hebrew-speaking member of ancient Israel of orthodox belief.
It is important to realize in this regard that Genesis (for all its importance) is really only the prologue to the exodus and the establishment of Israel as a nation in covenant with Yahweh. Genesis is, in effect, the prologue of the Pentateuch. The implied reader or listener would understand Genesis, therefore, through the prism of Israelite cultural knowledge, prominent within which would be the idea of Israel’s election and Israelite religious tradition and practice.
The implication of the existence of such cultural presuppositions in the mind of the implied reader is that the implied reader would approach the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3 with a knowledge of the weekly pattern of six days’ work and one day’s rest as part of their cultural “baggage.” This means that the concept of God working to order and fill the world over six days, then resting on the seventh when everything was complete, would most naturally have been understood by the implied reader in terms of a cycle of normal 24-hour days, on analogy with the Hebrew custom of six day’s work, one day’s rest.
The initial impression that the implied reader would have received on reading or hearing the creation account is that God’s activity fits our own pattern of activity. We work for six days and then enjoy our Sabbath rest, and so does God! But it is not a case of God imitating the Hebrews. Further reflection would involve the application of the truth of the fourth commandment to the creation narrative:
In this way the implied reader would come away from his or her reading of Gen 1:1–2:3, not only with an assumption that the days of the creation week were normal 24-hour days, on analogy with one’s own experience of work and rest; but more importantly, with the knowledge that God himself is the analogue for human work and rest. This idea has important ramifications for how the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 is to be understood.
It is important to realize in this regard that Genesis (for all its importance) is really only the prologue to the exodus and the establishment of Israel as a nation in covenant with Yahweh. Genesis is, in effect, the prologue of the Pentateuch. The implied reader or listener would understand Genesis, therefore, through the prism of Israelite cultural knowledge, prominent within which would be the idea of Israel’s election and Israelite religious tradition and practice.
The implication of the existence of such cultural presuppositions in the mind of the implied reader is that the implied reader would approach the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:3 with a knowledge of the weekly pattern of six days’ work and one day’s rest as part of their cultural “baggage.” This means that the concept of God working to order and fill the world over six days, then resting on the seventh when everything was complete, would most naturally have been understood by the implied reader in terms of a cycle of normal 24-hour days, on analogy with the Hebrew custom of six day’s work, one day’s rest.
The initial impression that the implied reader would have received on reading or hearing the creation account is that God’s activity fits our own pattern of activity. We work for six days and then enjoy our Sabbath rest, and so does God! But it is not a case of God imitating the Hebrews. Further reflection would involve the application of the truth of the fourth commandment to the creation narrative:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exod 20:8–11).Knowledge of the fourth commandment and the Hebrew custom of resting from one’s work on the seventh day would effectively function as a hermeneutical guide for the the way in which Gen 1:1–2:3 would be understood. Hence the conclusion: it is not a case of God imitating us, but us imitating God! We Israelites work for six days and rest on the seventh, because that is what God did.
In this way the implied reader would come away from his or her reading of Gen 1:1–2:3, not only with an assumption that the days of the creation week were normal 24-hour days, on analogy with one’s own experience of work and rest; but more importantly, with the knowledge that God himself is the analogue for human work and rest. This idea has important ramifications for how the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 is to be understood.
25 September 2010
The Theology of Genesis 1
Genesis 1 has been the primary biblical battleground in the contentious debate over views of creation and evolution among Christians for many decades now, but in all of this the important theology of Gen 1 has frequently been overlooked.
Genesis 1:1 talks about the initial creation of the cosmos by God, but it is interesting from the perspective of the original Hebrew that Gen 1:2 contains three disjunctive clauses. These disjunctive clauses add information that is circumstantial to the main action of the narrative, which skips from v. 1, over v. 2, to resume in v. 3. At the same time, however, there is an element of contrast implied in these clauses. The following translation seeks to bring out something of the sense of the disjunctive nature of these clauses:
A similar thing applies to the second clause in Gen 1:2. Like with the first clause in v. 2, the disjunctive nature of the second clause contrasts with the expectation of perfection that one might ordinarily have in relation to God’s creation of the cosmos in v. 1. God created the cosmos, but Planet Earth was covered in darkness. The disjunctive nature of the second clause in Gen 1:2 prompts us to see how surprising this is. Why would a God of light, the God in whom there is no darkness, create the earth only to cover it in darkness?
Formless, empty, covered in darkness; but the chaotic mass was pregnant with the expectation of new life, because the Spirit of God was brooding over the water. The disjunctive nature of the third clause in Gen 1:2 arguably signals contrast with the preceding two clauses just as much as it presents information that is circumstantial to the main action of the narrative. Things might look bleak, but the Spirit of God is always present offering the hope of new life:
What we have in Gen 1 is a movement from disorder, emptiness, and darkness, to light (v. 3), and order (through dividing and naming in vv. 4–10), and filling (vv. 11–31). And significantly, how does God bring about this order and the fullness of life? And God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29). Through the ten words of God, order and life is brought into the world. To the implied orthodox Hebrew reader, the message of Gen 1 at this point is crystal clear: it is the word of God that brings order and life. The whole of human society must be founded upon and directed by the word of God the Creator. To do otherwise is to revert back to the disorder, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass.
The theology of Gen 1 is not only that God is the Creator of the cosmos, but that he is the God who acts through the power of his Spirit and word to transform chaos into order, to transform the emptiness of non-life into the fullness of life, and darkness into light. The theology of Gen 1 is more than just the time frame of creation. In fact, the six day structure of Gen 1 should prompt us to ask why God took his time! Why take his time leisurely over six days rather than complete everything in the blink of an eye? Why start off with just one measly person, then two, in a small garden? Why not the whole earth full with ten billion people right from the start? Is such not possible for a God who created the cosmos ex nihilo? All of this signals that God has chosen to start off small, and to move progressively in time to bring about the full fruition of his purposes.
In sum, the six days of the ordering of the initial chaotic mass and filling it is a statement of the kind of God that God would prove to be. Even the very way in which God created the world was a dramatic proclamation concerning his intentions in history. This means that God actually had us in mind when he created the world! He deliberately created the world in the way that he did in order to teach us about himself and about his plan for the subsequent history of the world, and we miss the point of Gen 1 if we fail to see this. God created the world the way he did because he wants us to see that he is a God who moves in human history from small to big, from disorder to order, from darkness to light, from death to life. The theology of Gen 1 is a theology of the gradual growth of the kingdom of God on earth through the power of God’s word and Spirit. When we have understood this, then we have no reason ever to lose hope, no matter how dark the world around us may seem to be. The theology of the cross and resurrection has been foreshadowed from the very beginning.
Genesis 1:1 talks about the initial creation of the cosmos by God, but it is interesting from the perspective of the original Hebrew that Gen 1:2 contains three disjunctive clauses. These disjunctive clauses add information that is circumstantial to the main action of the narrative, which skips from v. 1, over v. 2, to resume in v. 3. At the same time, however, there is an element of contrast implied in these clauses. The following translation seeks to bring out something of the sense of the disjunctive nature of these clauses:
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, (2) but the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, but the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water.If the disjunctive nature of the first clause in Gen 1:2 is taken as conveying an element of contrast, then this is significant. It prompts us to ask the question: Why would God, when he created the world, initially create Planet Earth to be formless and empty? Surely God with his infinite power could have created a world that was fully formed right from the very beginning, but he chose not to; and the disjunctive clause at the beginning of Gen 1:2 is there to help us see how surprising this is. Why would a God of order create a world that existed in a state of disorder for a certain period of time? What is God trying to teach us?
A similar thing applies to the second clause in Gen 1:2. Like with the first clause in v. 2, the disjunctive nature of the second clause contrasts with the expectation of perfection that one might ordinarily have in relation to God’s creation of the cosmos in v. 1. God created the cosmos, but Planet Earth was covered in darkness. The disjunctive nature of the second clause in Gen 1:2 prompts us to see how surprising this is. Why would a God of light, the God in whom there is no darkness, create the earth only to cover it in darkness?
Formless, empty, covered in darkness; but the chaotic mass was pregnant with the expectation of new life, because the Spirit of God was brooding over the water. The disjunctive nature of the third clause in Gen 1:2 arguably signals contrast with the preceding two clauses just as much as it presents information that is circumstantial to the main action of the narrative. Things might look bleak, but the Spirit of God is always present offering the hope of new life:
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you (Ps 139:7–12).In the midst of the chaos and darkness of the world, the Spirit of God is present; and “it is the Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63).
What we have in Gen 1 is a movement from disorder, emptiness, and darkness, to light (v. 3), and order (through dividing and naming in vv. 4–10), and filling (vv. 11–31). And significantly, how does God bring about this order and the fullness of life? And God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29). Through the ten words of God, order and life is brought into the world. To the implied orthodox Hebrew reader, the message of Gen 1 at this point is crystal clear: it is the word of God that brings order and life. The whole of human society must be founded upon and directed by the word of God the Creator. To do otherwise is to revert back to the disorder, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass.
The theology of Gen 1 is not only that God is the Creator of the cosmos, but that he is the God who acts through the power of his Spirit and word to transform chaos into order, to transform the emptiness of non-life into the fullness of life, and darkness into light. The theology of Gen 1 is more than just the time frame of creation. In fact, the six day structure of Gen 1 should prompt us to ask why God took his time! Why take his time leisurely over six days rather than complete everything in the blink of an eye? Why start off with just one measly person, then two, in a small garden? Why not the whole earth full with ten billion people right from the start? Is such not possible for a God who created the cosmos ex nihilo? All of this signals that God has chosen to start off small, and to move progressively in time to bring about the full fruition of his purposes.
In sum, the six days of the ordering of the initial chaotic mass and filling it is a statement of the kind of God that God would prove to be. Even the very way in which God created the world was a dramatic proclamation concerning his intentions in history. This means that God actually had us in mind when he created the world! He deliberately created the world in the way that he did in order to teach us about himself and about his plan for the subsequent history of the world, and we miss the point of Gen 1 if we fail to see this. God created the world the way he did because he wants us to see that he is a God who moves in human history from small to big, from disorder to order, from darkness to light, from death to life. The theology of Gen 1 is a theology of the gradual growth of the kingdom of God on earth through the power of God’s word and Spirit. When we have understood this, then we have no reason ever to lose hope, no matter how dark the world around us may seem to be. The theology of the cross and resurrection has been foreshadowed from the very beginning.
19 September 2010
From Wilderness to Promised Land: The Experience of Adam, Israel, and Jesus
Most Christians are familiar with the idea that Adam was expelled from the garden of Eden to live effectively in the wilderness, but the idea that Adam commenced his life outside the garden is not so well known. Adam was not created inside the garden! This observation highlights some important biblical theological truths.
Firstly, to prove that Adam was indeed created outside of the garden. Thankfully, this is not too difficult to prove. The creation of Adam occurs in Gen 2:7, and the planting of the garden and Adam’s placement therein occurs in the next verse, i.e., in Gen 2:8. The NIV translation of ויטע and he planted into the English past perfect he had planted suggests that the garden was planted by God prior to the creation of Adam. But this is unlikely from the point of view of the original Hebrew. The most natural reading of the Hebrew is that the preterite verbs in Gen 2:7–8 (וייצר and he formed ... ויפח and he breathed ... ויהי and he became ... ויטע and he planted ... וישם and he placed) should be understood in the typical Hebrew manner as being temporally sequential.
In other words, Adam was not only created outside the garden of Eden, but he was created even before the garden had come into existence. This means that Adam was not only conscious of his “wilderness” origin—Genesis 2:5; 3:23 allow us to use the term wilderness of the land where Adam was created—but we can also assume that Adam would also have witnessed God planting the garden. He was, after all, conscious at the time. Imagine it from Adam’s perspective: after seeing God planting and getting everything ready, all of a sudden he is led by God into the garden that has been prepared almost as if it were specially for him. Imagine being led through a tree-lined entrance into the heart of a magnificent garden oasis. Adam knew the difference between the wilderness and the garden! He knew what it was to be the recipient of God’s (non-redemptive) grace from the very beginning.
Furthermore, noticing that Adam was created outside of the garden helps us to see that the important from wilderness to promised land theme of the Bible was something that was in operation from the very beginning. Just as Adam was led from the wilderness into the “promised land” of the garden of Eden, only to be expelled; Israel too would repeat this sequence. From the wilderness, John the Baptist proclaimed the arrival of the true Adam and the true Israel in the person of Jesus. Like with Adam and Israel, Jesus’ ministry began in the wilderness. There he was baptized, and there he was tempted; but unlike forgetful Israel, Jesus remembered the lessons of the wilderness (Matt 4:1–10): that “man [does] not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (a quotation of Deut 8:3 read in the light of Deut 8:2); that “you shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Deut 6:16 read in the light of Deut 6:10–12); and that “you shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Deut 6:13 also read in the light of Deut 6:10–12). Knowing the lessons of the wilderness, Jesus would not repeat the mistake of his forefathers, and the cycle of wilderness to promised land to wilderness was broken. Through his death, resurrection, and ascension, permanent human habitation of the promised land has been achieved.
Firstly, to prove that Adam was indeed created outside of the garden. Thankfully, this is not too difficult to prove. The creation of Adam occurs in Gen 2:7, and the planting of the garden and Adam’s placement therein occurs in the next verse, i.e., in Gen 2:8. The NIV translation of ויטע and he planted into the English past perfect he had planted suggests that the garden was planted by God prior to the creation of Adam. But this is unlikely from the point of view of the original Hebrew. The most natural reading of the Hebrew is that the preterite verbs in Gen 2:7–8 (וייצר and he formed ... ויפח and he breathed ... ויהי and he became ... ויטע and he planted ... וישם and he placed) should be understood in the typical Hebrew manner as being temporally sequential.
In other words, Adam was not only created outside the garden of Eden, but he was created even before the garden had come into existence. This means that Adam was not only conscious of his “wilderness” origin—Genesis 2:5; 3:23 allow us to use the term wilderness of the land where Adam was created—but we can also assume that Adam would also have witnessed God planting the garden. He was, after all, conscious at the time. Imagine it from Adam’s perspective: after seeing God planting and getting everything ready, all of a sudden he is led by God into the garden that has been prepared almost as if it were specially for him. Imagine being led through a tree-lined entrance into the heart of a magnificent garden oasis. Adam knew the difference between the wilderness and the garden! He knew what it was to be the recipient of God’s (non-redemptive) grace from the very beginning.
Furthermore, noticing that Adam was created outside of the garden helps us to see that the important from wilderness to promised land theme of the Bible was something that was in operation from the very beginning. Just as Adam was led from the wilderness into the “promised land” of the garden of Eden, only to be expelled; Israel too would repeat this sequence. From the wilderness, John the Baptist proclaimed the arrival of the true Adam and the true Israel in the person of Jesus. Like with Adam and Israel, Jesus’ ministry began in the wilderness. There he was baptized, and there he was tempted; but unlike forgetful Israel, Jesus remembered the lessons of the wilderness (Matt 4:1–10): that “man [does] not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (a quotation of Deut 8:3 read in the light of Deut 8:2); that “you shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Deut 6:16 read in the light of Deut 6:10–12); and that “you shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Deut 6:13 also read in the light of Deut 6:10–12). Knowing the lessons of the wilderness, Jesus would not repeat the mistake of his forefathers, and the cycle of wilderness to promised land to wilderness was broken. Through his death, resurrection, and ascension, permanent human habitation of the promised land has been achieved.
11 September 2010
Relationship before Covenant or Covenant before Relationship?
In interacting with William Dumbrell’s suggestion that the covenant in Gen 9 is a renewal of God’s covenant with creation, Paul Williamson has argued that relationship is prior to covenant in the biblical order of things:
I agree in part with Williamson and Waltke at this point. Obviously God has been in a relationship with the world and its creatures from the very instance of creation, and it is true that there is nothing approximating a formal covenant ceremony in Gen 1–3. God’s relationship with the world is described in terms of his creation of the world, and his commitment to ordering and filling it. Filling the world and exercising dominion over it constitutes God’s blessing for humanity. God’s blessing is, in fact, the creation mandate (Gen 1:28), which is both imperatival, jussive, and indicative: God commands, desires, and foreordains that the mandate be fulfilled. The relationship between God and creation has as its presupposition, therefore, the divine fiat of creation; but the primary structure in Gen 1 for the outworking of this relationship is the divine blessing of life and dominion.
In addition to the blessing of life and dominion, promise also plays a part in structuring God’s relationship with humanity. In Gen 1:1–2:3, the ontological analogy between humanity and God (due to the former’s creation in the image of God) strongly suggests that the goal of humanity’s work on earth is an eternal Sabbath rest. That is to say, there is an implied promise in Gen 1:1–2:3. In Gen 2, the idea of promise is more explicit. The command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil promised that death would result from eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17). The flipside of this is the implication that obedience would result in life. Genesis 1–2 clearly teaches, therefore, that humanity’s relationship with God is regulated by God’s word. God word of promise is that, as his word of command is obeyed, his word of blessing will be realized. The focus in Gen 1–2 is on God’s word (his word of blessing, command, and promise) rather than on covenant per se.
I agree then that, strictly speaking, relationship is prior to covenant. But to say that covenants merely formalize an existing relationship is not accurate. The presence of a historical prologue in the standard covenant form acknowledges that some kind of prior relationship typically exists between the parties of a covenant, but covenants do not necessarily simply formalize the status quo. Covenants presuppose a certain history, but their orientation is towards the future. In particular, they specify the privileges, obligations, and sanctions of the relationship (from the time of the establishment of the covenant) into the future. The major divine-human covenants that we encounter in the Bible do not formalize the status quo, but establish and regulate in a formally binding way a new stage in the relationship. Marriage, for example, is a covenant. To say that the marriage ceremony formalizes a pre-existing one flesh relationship between husband and wife is not accurate. Rather, the marriage covenant defines a new relationship, or at least a new and distinctive stage in the relationship moving forward into the future.
And even if it is true to say that strictly speaking the concept of covenant does not occur in Gen 1–2, it also needs to be acknowledged that the basic structural elements of a covenant (i.e., parties, promise, condition, and penalty) all exist in the prelapsarian situation of Adam in the garden. Just as oaths function to strengthen promises, covenants formalize, solemnize, and strengthen relationships by defining the privileges and obligations of the parties in the relationship, as well as the sanctions that exist for any who would break the covenant. These privileges, obligations, and sanctions are at heart … promises. Covenants define binding relationships based on promise. The relational dynamics of promise inside the garden is not fundamentally different, therefore, from the relational dynamics of covenant outside the garden.
The definition of a relationship that a covenant provides may simply be to renew or confirm an existing covenant or relationship, or it may be to establish a new stage in the relationship that is consistent with previous commitments. The covenant with Noah confirms God’s intention that land animals should exist on the earth (as per Gen 1:24), and that the birds and humanity should be blessed (as per Gen 1:20, 22, 26–28). But, at the same time, it also contains new content: God promises in particular that all flesh will not be destroyed again by a universal flood. This is something that had not been promised in the garden. This particularity means, therefore, that the covenant with Noah cannot simply be a confirmation of God’s covenant with creation. Instead of looking back, the Noahic covenant looks to the future, and promises that animate life will be preserved on earth until God’s purpose of the blessing of life and dominion is achieved for humanity.
For most Reformed theologians, any relationship involving God must be covenantal in nature—whether it is his relationship with creation in general or his relation with human beings in particular. Covenant is seen as framing or establishing such a relationship. This, however, is not in fact what the biblical text suggests. Rather than establishing or framing such a divine-human relationship, a covenant seals or formalizes it. The biblical order is relationship, then covenant, rather than covenant, hence relationship (Paul Williamson, “Covenant: The Beginning of a Biblical Idea,” Reformed Theological Review 65 [2006]: 12–13).Williamson cites approvingly Bruce Waltke’s understanding that a covenant “solemnizes and confirms a social relationship already in existence” (Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 136).
I agree in part with Williamson and Waltke at this point. Obviously God has been in a relationship with the world and its creatures from the very instance of creation, and it is true that there is nothing approximating a formal covenant ceremony in Gen 1–3. God’s relationship with the world is described in terms of his creation of the world, and his commitment to ordering and filling it. Filling the world and exercising dominion over it constitutes God’s blessing for humanity. God’s blessing is, in fact, the creation mandate (Gen 1:28), which is both imperatival, jussive, and indicative: God commands, desires, and foreordains that the mandate be fulfilled. The relationship between God and creation has as its presupposition, therefore, the divine fiat of creation; but the primary structure in Gen 1 for the outworking of this relationship is the divine blessing of life and dominion.
In addition to the blessing of life and dominion, promise also plays a part in structuring God’s relationship with humanity. In Gen 1:1–2:3, the ontological analogy between humanity and God (due to the former’s creation in the image of God) strongly suggests that the goal of humanity’s work on earth is an eternal Sabbath rest. That is to say, there is an implied promise in Gen 1:1–2:3. In Gen 2, the idea of promise is more explicit. The command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil promised that death would result from eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17). The flipside of this is the implication that obedience would result in life. Genesis 1–2 clearly teaches, therefore, that humanity’s relationship with God is regulated by God’s word. God word of promise is that, as his word of command is obeyed, his word of blessing will be realized. The focus in Gen 1–2 is on God’s word (his word of blessing, command, and promise) rather than on covenant per se.
I agree then that, strictly speaking, relationship is prior to covenant. But to say that covenants merely formalize an existing relationship is not accurate. The presence of a historical prologue in the standard covenant form acknowledges that some kind of prior relationship typically exists between the parties of a covenant, but covenants do not necessarily simply formalize the status quo. Covenants presuppose a certain history, but their orientation is towards the future. In particular, they specify the privileges, obligations, and sanctions of the relationship (from the time of the establishment of the covenant) into the future. The major divine-human covenants that we encounter in the Bible do not formalize the status quo, but establish and regulate in a formally binding way a new stage in the relationship. Marriage, for example, is a covenant. To say that the marriage ceremony formalizes a pre-existing one flesh relationship between husband and wife is not accurate. Rather, the marriage covenant defines a new relationship, or at least a new and distinctive stage in the relationship moving forward into the future.
And even if it is true to say that strictly speaking the concept of covenant does not occur in Gen 1–2, it also needs to be acknowledged that the basic structural elements of a covenant (i.e., parties, promise, condition, and penalty) all exist in the prelapsarian situation of Adam in the garden. Just as oaths function to strengthen promises, covenants formalize, solemnize, and strengthen relationships by defining the privileges and obligations of the parties in the relationship, as well as the sanctions that exist for any who would break the covenant. These privileges, obligations, and sanctions are at heart … promises. Covenants define binding relationships based on promise. The relational dynamics of promise inside the garden is not fundamentally different, therefore, from the relational dynamics of covenant outside the garden.
The definition of a relationship that a covenant provides may simply be to renew or confirm an existing covenant or relationship, or it may be to establish a new stage in the relationship that is consistent with previous commitments. The covenant with Noah confirms God’s intention that land animals should exist on the earth (as per Gen 1:24), and that the birds and humanity should be blessed (as per Gen 1:20, 22, 26–28). But, at the same time, it also contains new content: God promises in particular that all flesh will not be destroyed again by a universal flood. This is something that had not been promised in the garden. This particularity means, therefore, that the covenant with Noah cannot simply be a confirmation of God’s covenant with creation. Instead of looking back, the Noahic covenant looks to the future, and promises that animate life will be preserved on earth until God’s purpose of the blessing of life and dominion is achieved for humanity.
06 September 2010
The Meaning of God Establishing His Covenant with Noah in Genesis 9
The language of establishing a covenant occurs twice in Gen 9. In Gen 9:9–10, God says to Noah and his sons: “And I, behold, I am establishing (מקים) my covenant with you and with your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you.” מקים is a Hifil participle of קום. The question here is whether מקים means that God is establishing a new covenant with Noah, or confirming a previously existing one. Linguistically, both options are possible, so context must be our guide in deciding which option is more probable. Given the absence of any explicit covenant language in the text preceding the Noah narrative, it is difficult to take מקים as talking about the confirmation of a previously existing covenant. The most natural reading is that God is establishing a new covenant with Noah and his seed, together with the living creatures (saved by Noah) and their seed (see Gen 9:12, 15). The content of the covenant is specifically the divine promise not to destroy “all flesh” by way of further instances of universal flooding (Gen 9:11, 15). This promise constitutes new content arising out of the new situation, namely, the existential crisis of life in the postdiluvian world. Appropriately this new covenant also has a new sign: the sign of the rainbow (Gen 9:13–14, 16–17). The translation of מקים in the LXX as ἀνίστημι confirms this. ἀνίστημι as a transitive verb means to cause to stand up, to raise up, to erect, to build; compared to ἵστημι, which means to cause to stand, and which can also have the meaning of to confirm. Thus, the translators of the LXX, by their use of ἀνίστημι rather than ἵστημι in Gen 9:9, seem to have understood מקים as indicating the establishment of a new (covenantal) formality within the relationship between God, humanity, and the earth.
The second instance of establishing a covenant in Gen 9 is found in v. 11, where God continues and says to Noah: “I will establish (והקמתי) my covenant with you, and all flesh will not be cut off again by the waters of the flood, and there will not be a flood again to destroy the earth.” It is significant that והקמתי is a Hifil modal perfect form, the modal flavor of which must be determined in the light of the context. The ESV seems to interpret והקמתי as carrying something of the flavor of the participle מקים from v. 9, as it translates both מקים and והקמתי as I establish. However it is best to interpret the flavor of the modal perfect verb in question in line with the two negative imperfect clauses that follow it in v. 11, which are basically epexegetic of the first clause in v. 11. In other words, והקמתי has a standard future-imperfective force. According to this interpretation, the idea of establishing God’s covenant in Gen 9:11 is to be understood in terms of God’s fulfillment of his covenant obligations in the future. God’s “establishment” of his covenant in v. 11 will be realized as he refrains from sending another flood to destroy all flesh in the future. This future-imperfective interpretation of והקמתי is confirmed in the LXX, which translates והקמתי using the verb στήσω, the future tense of ἵστημι.
All up, therefore, I would argue that the language of establishing a covenant in Gen 9:9 best reads as indicating the establishment of a new covenant that helps to guarantee the eventual fulfillment of the blessing of the realization of the original creation mandate, renewed in Gen 9:1–7. However, in Gen 9:11 the confirmation and fulfillment of this covenant in the future is being asserted. The Noahic covenant is a new covenant that functions to preserve animate life in the world by restricting the operation of the forces of chaos and decreation until a permanent solution to human sinfulness might be achieved. In Gen 9 the Noahic covenant is a newly erected frame, but at the same time its erection confirms the original framework of blessing and promise for which humanity as a whole was created.
The second instance of establishing a covenant in Gen 9 is found in v. 11, where God continues and says to Noah: “I will establish (והקמתי) my covenant with you, and all flesh will not be cut off again by the waters of the flood, and there will not be a flood again to destroy the earth.” It is significant that והקמתי is a Hifil modal perfect form, the modal flavor of which must be determined in the light of the context. The ESV seems to interpret והקמתי as carrying something of the flavor of the participle מקים from v. 9, as it translates both מקים and והקמתי as I establish. However it is best to interpret the flavor of the modal perfect verb in question in line with the two negative imperfect clauses that follow it in v. 11, which are basically epexegetic of the first clause in v. 11. In other words, והקמתי has a standard future-imperfective force. According to this interpretation, the idea of establishing God’s covenant in Gen 9:11 is to be understood in terms of God’s fulfillment of his covenant obligations in the future. God’s “establishment” of his covenant in v. 11 will be realized as he refrains from sending another flood to destroy all flesh in the future. This future-imperfective interpretation of והקמתי is confirmed in the LXX, which translates והקמתי using the verb στήσω, the future tense of ἵστημι.
All up, therefore, I would argue that the language of establishing a covenant in Gen 9:9 best reads as indicating the establishment of a new covenant that helps to guarantee the eventual fulfillment of the blessing of the realization of the original creation mandate, renewed in Gen 9:1–7. However, in Gen 9:11 the confirmation and fulfillment of this covenant in the future is being asserted. The Noahic covenant is a new covenant that functions to preserve animate life in the world by restricting the operation of the forces of chaos and decreation until a permanent solution to human sinfulness might be achieved. In Gen 9 the Noahic covenant is a newly erected frame, but at the same time its erection confirms the original framework of blessing and promise for which humanity as a whole was created.
27 August 2010
The Meaning of God Establishing His Covenant in Genesis 6:18
In Gen 6:18 God says to Noah: “I will establish my covenant with you.” The question under investigation here is the meaning of והקמתי, the Hifil form of קום, that is used in this verse. We need to note in the first instance that והקמתי is a modal perfect or a weqatal form. The flavor of the modal perfect must be determined on the basis of the linguisitic context in which it is found. It is clear in this regard that Gen 6:17 has the immediate future in mind. The participle מביא bringing is used here to indicate what God is going to do in the immediate future. It makes sense, therefore, that the modal perfect והקמתי in 6:18 carries something of a similar flavor. The logic of God’s speech at this point is that after he brings the flood upon the earth, then he will “establish” his covenant with Noah. In other words, the “establishing” looks like it will take place some time in the future after the flood has come.
But what is the meaning of the verb והקמתי in this context? Is it indicating here that God will establish a new covenant with Noah, or simply that God will take a previously established covenant and confirm it with Noah, after the flood has come? Contrary to what some have argued, the fact that God describes this covenant as my covenant is insufficient to resolve the issue. A covenant that is not yet in existence but which God is about to grant to his subjects can be described in such personal terms. For example, the language my covenant appears in Gen 17. In Gen 17:4, God says to Abraham that “[his] covenant” was going to be with Abraham. It is clear from Gen 17:10 that the covenant mentioned by God in Gen 17:4 is the covenant of circumcision that he was about to make with Abraham: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Gen 17:10). Similarly in Exod 19:5, it appears far-fetched to say that my covenant here is not the covenant that God was proposing to make with Israel at the time, i.e., the Sinaitic covenant, the inauguration of which is recorded in Exod 24. Also, in Num 25:12, the expression my covenant refers to the covenant of an everlasting priesthood given to Phinehas and his seed. This was not a previously existing covenant, but one newly granted. The language of my covenant, which occurs 47 times in the Old Testament, simply serves to highlight God’s ownership of the covenants that he grants to his subjects, whether they be covenants already in existence or still to come into existence in the future.
In the end, how we are to understand the meaning of the expression I will establish my covenant with you in Gen 6:18 is dependent on the context. Given the logic of Gen 6:17–18, what happens after the flood (i.e., the content of Gen 9) will be the key to understanding the meaning of this expression. My next post, God willing, will discuss the idea of “establishing” a covenant that emerges from Gen 9.
But what is the meaning of the verb והקמתי in this context? Is it indicating here that God will establish a new covenant with Noah, or simply that God will take a previously established covenant and confirm it with Noah, after the flood has come? Contrary to what some have argued, the fact that God describes this covenant as my covenant is insufficient to resolve the issue. A covenant that is not yet in existence but which God is about to grant to his subjects can be described in such personal terms. For example, the language my covenant appears in Gen 17. In Gen 17:4, God says to Abraham that “[his] covenant” was going to be with Abraham. It is clear from Gen 17:10 that the covenant mentioned by God in Gen 17:4 is the covenant of circumcision that he was about to make with Abraham: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Gen 17:10). Similarly in Exod 19:5, it appears far-fetched to say that my covenant here is not the covenant that God was proposing to make with Israel at the time, i.e., the Sinaitic covenant, the inauguration of which is recorded in Exod 24. Also, in Num 25:12, the expression my covenant refers to the covenant of an everlasting priesthood given to Phinehas and his seed. This was not a previously existing covenant, but one newly granted. The language of my covenant, which occurs 47 times in the Old Testament, simply serves to highlight God’s ownership of the covenants that he grants to his subjects, whether they be covenants already in existence or still to come into existence in the future.
In the end, how we are to understand the meaning of the expression I will establish my covenant with you in Gen 6:18 is dependent on the context. Given the logic of Gen 6:17–18, what happens after the flood (i.e., the content of Gen 9) will be the key to understanding the meaning of this expression. My next post, God willing, will discuss the idea of “establishing” a covenant that emerges from Gen 9.
21 August 2010
The Language of Establishing a Covenant in Scripture
I regard William Dumbrell as a great biblical theologian, and I count him as a friend and mentor. I thoroughly recommend his work on the Old Testament and his New Testament commentaries (such as Galatians and Romans) to anybody who is interested in understanding Scripture in the light of the theme of covenant in the Bible. I also find Dumbrell’s work on the use of covenant terminology in the Noah narrative fascinating. Dumbrell notes that the terminology of cutting a covenant [כרת ברית] is absent from the Noah narrative. Instead we have the language of establishing a covenant [הקים ברית]. This occurs in Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17. Dumbrell argues that “perpetuation” rather than “the institution of a covenant” is “more than likely … in contexts where hēqîm berît” is used (William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology, [Exeter: Paternoster, 1984], 26). From this observation, Dumbrell suggests that God’s covenant with Noah was a confirmation of a pre-existing covenant, God’s covenant with creation, rather than being a newly instituted covenant.
In the light of Dumbrell’s thesis, it is interesting to consider how we should understand the meaning of the language of establishing a covenant in the Noah narrative. The verb הקים basically means to cause to stand. In relation to covenants, there are theoretically two possible meanings: to cause a covenant to stand for the first time (i.e., to establish or make a covenant), or to cause a covenant to continue to stand (i.e., to confirm, or to fulfill or carry out a covenant). Dumbrell argues that the biblical evidence consistently favors the second meaning. It is the case, however, that both meanings are attested in the lexicons. BDB, for example, suggests that הקים can mean to establish or make a covenant, as well as to carry out or give effect to a covenant (BDB, 879).
Leaving aside temporarily the references in Gen 6, 9, it is interesting to consider how the expression הקים ברית is used in the rest of the Old Testament. The expression in Gen 17:7 occurs in the context of God’s promise of future blessing, so should be understood in terms of God fulfilling or carrying out his covenant promises. In Gen 17:19, 21, God promises that he would perpetuate or renew the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac in the future. The usage of the expression in Exod 6:4 is a little ambiguous. It could either be saying that God established a covenant with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan, or that God confirmed this covenant and the promise of land by giving the patriarchs possession of the land in the sense that they were able to sojourn there. But can their sojourning in the land be considered as being a fulfillment of the promise to give them the land? To some extent, yes; but obviously not fully. This, along with the way in which God goes on to talk about how he would remember his covenant by redeeming the people from Egypt and taking them to the promised land (see Exod 6:6-8), suggests that the use of the expression in Exod 6:4 more likely indicates the intial establishment of the covenant with Abraham and the subsequent ratifications of the covenant with Isaac and Jacob individually. The expression in Lev 26:9 occurs in the context of future blessing, so it should also be understood in terms of God fulfilling or carrying out his covenant promises. The expression in Deut 8:18 also occurs in a future context, and should likewise be taken as indicating God’s fulfillment of the covenant promises. The usage of the expression in Ezek 16:60, 62 is somewhat ambiguous. God promises in Ezek 16:60 that he would remember his covenant (namely, the Sinaitic covenant; see Ezek 16:8) by establishing an eternal covenant with Judah. Is this talking about the institution of a new covenant, or the reaffirmation of the Sinaitic covenant? The answer to this is probably found in Ezek 16:61. Connected with the “establishment” of this eternal covenant is Judah’s penitent shame and her reception of Israel and the people of the region of Sodom as her daughters, “but not on the basis of your covenant.” This suggests that the “eternal covenant” in Ezek 16:60 is a new covenant, because it can incorporate non-Israelites, and because it is distinguished from “your covenant” (i.e., the Sinaitic covenant); but at the same time this new covenant constitutes God’s remembering, i.e., his fulfillment, of the Sinaitic covenant. It is not as if God would abandon or forget the Sinaitic covenant, but that the Sinaitic covenant finds its eternal fulfillment in the new covenant. If this is the correct understanding, then the covenant that is “established” in Ezek 16:62 is probably the new covenant, and this seems to be confirmed by the way in which the establishment of this covenant is linked in with the penitent shame of Judah and comprehensive forgiveness in Ezek 16:63.
The expression to establish the words of a covenant should also be noted. In this regard, 2 Kgs 23:3 is very interesting. Here Josiah cuts a covenant with Yahweh, and promises to obey Yahweh’s laws “with all his heart and all his soul, in order to establish the words of this covenant that were written in [the] book” of the law that was found in the temple. In other words, Josiah makes a covenant with God with a view to keeping the obligations of the Mosaic covenant. Josiah’s “new” covenant expressed his commitment to keeping the “old” Mosaic covenant. But to establish the words of a covenant clearly means here to fulfill one covenantal obligations. In a similar way, not establishing the words of a covenant is paralleled with the transgression of a covenant in Jer 34:18.
Overall, therefore, the expression הקים ברית usually indicates the confirmation or fulfillment of a covenant; but there are also places where it seems to be used of the initial establishment of a covenant. How then should we understand the use of the expression הקים ברית in Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17? Please tune in next time for the answer to this question.
In the light of Dumbrell’s thesis, it is interesting to consider how we should understand the meaning of the language of establishing a covenant in the Noah narrative. The verb הקים basically means to cause to stand. In relation to covenants, there are theoretically two possible meanings: to cause a covenant to stand for the first time (i.e., to establish or make a covenant), or to cause a covenant to continue to stand (i.e., to confirm, or to fulfill or carry out a covenant). Dumbrell argues that the biblical evidence consistently favors the second meaning. It is the case, however, that both meanings are attested in the lexicons. BDB, for example, suggests that הקים can mean to establish or make a covenant, as well as to carry out or give effect to a covenant (BDB, 879).
Leaving aside temporarily the references in Gen 6, 9, it is interesting to consider how the expression הקים ברית is used in the rest of the Old Testament. The expression in Gen 17:7 occurs in the context of God’s promise of future blessing, so should be understood in terms of God fulfilling or carrying out his covenant promises. In Gen 17:19, 21, God promises that he would perpetuate or renew the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac in the future. The usage of the expression in Exod 6:4 is a little ambiguous. It could either be saying that God established a covenant with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan, or that God confirmed this covenant and the promise of land by giving the patriarchs possession of the land in the sense that they were able to sojourn there. But can their sojourning in the land be considered as being a fulfillment of the promise to give them the land? To some extent, yes; but obviously not fully. This, along with the way in which God goes on to talk about how he would remember his covenant by redeeming the people from Egypt and taking them to the promised land (see Exod 6:6-8), suggests that the use of the expression in Exod 6:4 more likely indicates the intial establishment of the covenant with Abraham and the subsequent ratifications of the covenant with Isaac and Jacob individually. The expression in Lev 26:9 occurs in the context of future blessing, so it should also be understood in terms of God fulfilling or carrying out his covenant promises. The expression in Deut 8:18 also occurs in a future context, and should likewise be taken as indicating God’s fulfillment of the covenant promises. The usage of the expression in Ezek 16:60, 62 is somewhat ambiguous. God promises in Ezek 16:60 that he would remember his covenant (namely, the Sinaitic covenant; see Ezek 16:8) by establishing an eternal covenant with Judah. Is this talking about the institution of a new covenant, or the reaffirmation of the Sinaitic covenant? The answer to this is probably found in Ezek 16:61. Connected with the “establishment” of this eternal covenant is Judah’s penitent shame and her reception of Israel and the people of the region of Sodom as her daughters, “but not on the basis of your covenant.” This suggests that the “eternal covenant” in Ezek 16:60 is a new covenant, because it can incorporate non-Israelites, and because it is distinguished from “your covenant” (i.e., the Sinaitic covenant); but at the same time this new covenant constitutes God’s remembering, i.e., his fulfillment, of the Sinaitic covenant. It is not as if God would abandon or forget the Sinaitic covenant, but that the Sinaitic covenant finds its eternal fulfillment in the new covenant. If this is the correct understanding, then the covenant that is “established” in Ezek 16:62 is probably the new covenant, and this seems to be confirmed by the way in which the establishment of this covenant is linked in with the penitent shame of Judah and comprehensive forgiveness in Ezek 16:63.
The expression to establish the words of a covenant should also be noted. In this regard, 2 Kgs 23:3 is very interesting. Here Josiah cuts a covenant with Yahweh, and promises to obey Yahweh’s laws “with all his heart and all his soul, in order to establish the words of this covenant that were written in [the] book” of the law that was found in the temple. In other words, Josiah makes a covenant with God with a view to keeping the obligations of the Mosaic covenant. Josiah’s “new” covenant expressed his commitment to keeping the “old” Mosaic covenant. But to establish the words of a covenant clearly means here to fulfill one covenantal obligations. In a similar way, not establishing the words of a covenant is paralleled with the transgression of a covenant in Jer 34:18.
Overall, therefore, the expression הקים ברית usually indicates the confirmation or fulfillment of a covenant; but there are also places where it seems to be used of the initial establishment of a covenant. How then should we understand the use of the expression הקים ברית in Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17? Please tune in next time for the answer to this question.
13 August 2010
The Everlasting Covenant with Noah in Genesis Chapter 9
The first reference to ברית עולם or everlasting covenant in the Bible occurs in Gen 9:16. God says to Noah: “When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant [ברית עולם] between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
The question is: what does the phrase eternal covenant refer to here? The answer is found in the immediately preceding context, but in investigating this context it is helpful to consider the parties to the covenant as well as the content of the covenant.
According to Gen 9:16, the parties of this particular covenant are God and all living creatures. But Gen 9:15 shows that the expression every living creature of all flesh in v. 16 includes Noah and his offspring—the word you in the expression between me and you in v. 15 is a plural pronoun. Genesis 9:13 speaks of the covenant as being made between God and the earth, but what is in view is particularly the living creatures who dwell on the earth. This is very clear in the wording of Gen 9:10-11 when God says to Noah: “Behold, I am establishing my covenant with you and your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark, for every animal of the earth.” That Noah’s seed is included in the covenant suggests that this is a covenant that involves more parties than simply the human beings and animals alive at the time. Indeed, in Gen 9:12 it is spelled out that this covenant is being made for eternal [עולם] generations. In other words, this covenant was made with Noah, the land animals, and the winged creatures alive at the time together with their seed from that point in time ad infinitum. The parties of this covenant, therefore, are God as the first party and every living creature descended from Noah and the animals which had been housed in his ark as the second party.
Turning to consider the content of this covenant, it is helpful to note that the rainbow is the sign of this covenant (Gen 9:12, 16). The sign of the covenant encapsulates the core content of the covenant, which is in particular the promise not to destroy all flesh: “I will establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11); “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen 9:15).
Given the identification of the parties of this covenant as being Noah and his seed, as well as the animals and their subsequent generations in perpetuity, and given that the content of the covenant centers on the idea that there will not be another deluge akin to the flood of Noah, then it seems that the Noahic covenant is a ברית עולם due to the fact that the promise at the core of this covenant is eternal (i.e., from that point in time ever onwards) in its scope.
But what about William Dumbrell’s idea that the covenant ceremony in Gen 9 was confirming a covenant that had been made previously between God and creation? Is the Noahic covenant a ברית עולם in the sense that it continues on forever from the time of Noah, or rather because it is simply a confirmation of God’s eternal covenant with creation? I will endeavor to answer this question in my next post.
The question is: what does the phrase eternal covenant refer to here? The answer is found in the immediately preceding context, but in investigating this context it is helpful to consider the parties to the covenant as well as the content of the covenant.
According to Gen 9:16, the parties of this particular covenant are God and all living creatures. But Gen 9:15 shows that the expression every living creature of all flesh in v. 16 includes Noah and his offspring—the word you in the expression between me and you in v. 15 is a plural pronoun. Genesis 9:13 speaks of the covenant as being made between God and the earth, but what is in view is particularly the living creatures who dwell on the earth. This is very clear in the wording of Gen 9:10-11 when God says to Noah: “Behold, I am establishing my covenant with you and your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark, for every animal of the earth.” That Noah’s seed is included in the covenant suggests that this is a covenant that involves more parties than simply the human beings and animals alive at the time. Indeed, in Gen 9:12 it is spelled out that this covenant is being made for eternal [עולם] generations. In other words, this covenant was made with Noah, the land animals, and the winged creatures alive at the time together with their seed from that point in time ad infinitum. The parties of this covenant, therefore, are God as the first party and every living creature descended from Noah and the animals which had been housed in his ark as the second party.
Turning to consider the content of this covenant, it is helpful to note that the rainbow is the sign of this covenant (Gen 9:12, 16). The sign of the covenant encapsulates the core content of the covenant, which is in particular the promise not to destroy all flesh: “I will establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11); “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen 9:15).
Given the identification of the parties of this covenant as being Noah and his seed, as well as the animals and their subsequent generations in perpetuity, and given that the content of the covenant centers on the idea that there will not be another deluge akin to the flood of Noah, then it seems that the Noahic covenant is a ברית עולם due to the fact that the promise at the core of this covenant is eternal (i.e., from that point in time ever onwards) in its scope.
But what about William Dumbrell’s idea that the covenant ceremony in Gen 9 was confirming a covenant that had been made previously between God and creation? Is the Noahic covenant a ברית עולם in the sense that it continues on forever from the time of Noah, or rather because it is simply a confirmation of God’s eternal covenant with creation? I will endeavor to answer this question in my next post.
07 August 2010
The Perfecting of Jesus as High Priest upon the Cross
An investigation of how the LXX deals with the Hebrew concept of filling the hand has interesting implications for the concept of the perfection of Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews. Now perhaps you are wondering: what has the Hebrew idiom of filling the hand (see “Fill the Hand: A Hebrew Idiom of Ordination and Consecration”) got to do with Jesus’ perfection? Let me explain, and then you can let me know what you think.
The LXX translates the Hebrew idiom מלא יד in four ways. Firstly it can be translated using the expression ἐμπίπλημι τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 28:41; Judg 17:5, 12 [Alexandrinus]. The second option simply uses πίπλημι rather than ἐμπίπλημι. This occurs in 2 Kgs 9:24; Ezek 43:26. The third option is for the Hebrew idiom to be translated using the expression πληρόω τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 32:29; Jdg 17:5, 12 [Vaticanus]; 1 Kgs 13:33; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31. The fourth and final option is to translate this Hebrew idiom using the expression τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας to complete/consecrate the hands. This is the situation in Exod 29:9, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; Num 3:3. Leviticus 21:10 also belongs in this category. It uses the perfect passive participle of τελειόω, but without the phrase τὰς χεῖρας.
It is this final option with the verb τελειόω that is quite fascinating. It is to be noted that τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας is what is found in Leviticus, and particularly in Lev 8, the chapter that deals with the ordination of Aaron as the high priest. The מלא root actually occurs seven times in Lev 8. In Lev 8:22, 29 mention is made of the ram of ordination אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים, which is translated in the LXX as κριὸς τελείωσις. In Lev 8:28 the baked wave offering is described as a consecration מִלֻּאִים to God. In Lev 8:31 mention is made of a basket of consecration סַל הַמִּלֻּאִים. Then in Lev 8:33, we have three instances of the מלא root occuring in close proximity: Moses is to command Aaron and his sons not to leave the tent of meeting for seven days, literally, until the day of the filling מְלֹאת of the days of your filling/consecration מִלֻּאֵיכֶם, because for seven days he will fill יְמִלֵּא your hand יֶדְכֶם.”
The LXX translates the first four instances of the מלא root in Lev 8 using the noun τελείωσις. In Lev 8:33, it translates מְלֹאת using the verb πληρόω, but it uses τελείωσις for מִלֻּאִים, and the verb τελειόω for יְמִלֵּא. We have to say, therefore, that the τελειόω family of words is very prominent in the narrative of the ordination of Aaron as high priest in the LXX.
My suggestion is that this use of the τελειόω group of words in Lev 8 is relevant for understanding the concept of the τελείωσις of Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews. This is because Lev 8 juxtaposes the concepts of consecration/perfection and priesthood, and Hebrews does likewise in relation to the perfection and priesthood of Jesus.
The τελειόω group of words is used in Hebrews in a number of places; but, limiting our investigation to instances where Jesus is explicitly the agent or patient of the action denoted by τελειόω, the τελειόω group of words occurs five times.
The LXX translates the Hebrew idiom מלא יד in four ways. Firstly it can be translated using the expression ἐμπίπλημι τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 28:41; Judg 17:5, 12 [Alexandrinus]. The second option simply uses πίπλημι rather than ἐμπίπλημι. This occurs in 2 Kgs 9:24; Ezek 43:26. The third option is for the Hebrew idiom to be translated using the expression πληρόω τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 32:29; Jdg 17:5, 12 [Vaticanus]; 1 Kgs 13:33; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31. The fourth and final option is to translate this Hebrew idiom using the expression τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας to complete/consecrate the hands. This is the situation in Exod 29:9, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; Num 3:3. Leviticus 21:10 also belongs in this category. It uses the perfect passive participle of τελειόω, but without the phrase τὰς χεῖρας.
It is this final option with the verb τελειόω that is quite fascinating. It is to be noted that τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας is what is found in Leviticus, and particularly in Lev 8, the chapter that deals with the ordination of Aaron as the high priest. The מלא root actually occurs seven times in Lev 8. In Lev 8:22, 29 mention is made of the ram of ordination אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים, which is translated in the LXX as κριὸς τελείωσις. In Lev 8:28 the baked wave offering is described as a consecration מִלֻּאִים to God. In Lev 8:31 mention is made of a basket of consecration סַל הַמִּלֻּאִים. Then in Lev 8:33, we have three instances of the מלא root occuring in close proximity: Moses is to command Aaron and his sons not to leave the tent of meeting for seven days, literally, until the day of the filling מְלֹאת of the days of your filling/consecration מִלֻּאֵיכֶם, because for seven days he will fill יְמִלֵּא your hand יֶדְכֶם.”
The LXX translates the first four instances of the מלא root in Lev 8 using the noun τελείωσις. In Lev 8:33, it translates מְלֹאת using the verb πληρόω, but it uses τελείωσις for מִלֻּאִים, and the verb τελειόω for יְמִלֵּא. We have to say, therefore, that the τελειόω family of words is very prominent in the narrative of the ordination of Aaron as high priest in the LXX.
My suggestion is that this use of the τελειόω group of words in Lev 8 is relevant for understanding the concept of the τελείωσις of Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews. This is because Lev 8 juxtaposes the concepts of consecration/perfection and priesthood, and Hebrews does likewise in relation to the perfection and priesthood of Jesus.
The τελειόω group of words is used in Hebrews in a number of places; but, limiting our investigation to instances where Jesus is explicitly the agent or patient of the action denoted by τελειόω, the τελειόω group of words occurs five times.
- ● The verb τελειόω is used in Heb 2:10 where it is said that God made Jesus perfect through sufferings.
- ● In Heb 5:9 τελειόω is again used to speak of how Jesus was made perfect, which follows on from the idea in v. 8 of Jesus learning obedience through suffering. Once again, the idea seems to be that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross brought him to perfection in the sense that he completed what was necessary for him to be fully qualified to live in the presence of God and to function as a high priest for God’s people.
- ● The verb τελειόω is also used in Heb 7:28. Here Jesus is spoken of as being appointed as God’s Son (who has a priestly function), having been perfected eternally. The perfection in view here is presumably connected with his offering up of himself as a sacrifice, which is mentioned in Heb 7:27.
- ● The verb τελειόω is also used of Jesus’ eternal perfecting of believers through his offering up of himself: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14). If Jesus brought believers to perfection through his sacrificial death on the cross—note also the use of τελειόω in Heb 9:9 where it is implied that Jesus’ sacrifice is the only kind of sacrifice that can perfect those who worship God—then it makes sense to say that Jesus’ own perfection was achieved in a similar way, i.e., his death on the cross was the climax of the process of his perfecting, the process of the learning of obedience through suffering so as to qualify him to live in the presence of God and to function as a high priest.
- ● Finally, in Heb 12:2 the noun τελειωτής perfecter is applied to Jesus: he is “the author and perfecter of faith.” This presumably means that Jesus is the one who begins and completes faith in the sense that he is the one who has gone beforehand on the journey of faith, as well as being the one who has completed the journey of faith, enduring the cross, despising the shame (Heb 12:3). His perfection of faith makes our journey of faith possible, and gives it an assured destination.
30 July 2010
Fill the Hand: A Hebrew Idiom of Ordination and Consecration
To fill the hand is an interesting Hebrew idiom. Overall, it occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible. It is most often connected with the consecration of the Levitical priests. In Exod 28:41, God instructs Moses: “you shall anoint [Aaron and his sons], and fill their hand, and consecrate them, and they shall function as priests for me.” See also Exod 29:9, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3. The expression is also used of the illegal ordination of priests. Micah the Ephraimite filled the hand of one of his sons, and the hand of the infamous Levite, to be priests (Judg 17:5, 12). See also 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Chr 13:9.
The expression typically has the Piel of מלא with יד as its object. It is usually understood as an idiom that means to consecrate or to ordain, but what is the connection between filling the hand and ordination? The root מלא in the Piel means to fill. The word יד, which means hand, can have the extended meaning of power. The idiom seemingly communicates, therefore, the idea of conferring power or authority. To fill the hand of a person is to complete the power of that person in the sense of authorizing that person for a particular task.
There is a concrete example of this expression in the Scriptures which seems to illuminate this idiom. In 2 Kgs 9:24, we are told that “Jehu filled his hand in the bow.” In other words, Jehu put his strength into the bow to draw it back strongly for a powerful shot aimed at King Joram. Here to fill the hand means to transfer power. This seems to confirm the idea that filling the hand of someone to be priest means to authorize, hence to ordain as priest.
However, the expression can also be used of ordinary people who consecrate themselves in the service of God. David is recorded as using the expression in 1 Chr 29:5 to encourage the people to give freewill offerings to the Lord to be used in the the building of the temple. Here the people are effectively called upon to fill their own hands in the service of God! A similar idea is found in 2 Chr 29:31 where the people fill their hands by joining with Hezekiah in renewing the covenant before God. And finally, the expression can also be used of objects dedicated for the worship of God. The priests in Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple would offer sacrifices to purify and to fill the hand of the altar of the temple (Ezek 43:26).
There is one particular use of this expression that deserves to be mentioned. After the sin of the golden calf, Moses proclaimed: “Whoever is on the Lord’s side, come to me!” (Exod 32:26). When the sons of Levi gathered around him, Moses told them to take their swords and to execute judgment upon the people. He also encouraged them at this time: “Fill your hands today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son and against his brother!” (Exod 32:29). Having understood the logic behind the idiom, Moses’ use of the expression at this juncture surely appears to be a case of deliberate double entendre. The Levites were to consecrate themselves to God by unleashing the power of their hands against their rebellious countrymen.
The expression typically has the Piel of מלא with יד as its object. It is usually understood as an idiom that means to consecrate or to ordain, but what is the connection between filling the hand and ordination? The root מלא in the Piel means to fill. The word יד, which means hand, can have the extended meaning of power. The idiom seemingly communicates, therefore, the idea of conferring power or authority. To fill the hand of a person is to complete the power of that person in the sense of authorizing that person for a particular task.
There is a concrete example of this expression in the Scriptures which seems to illuminate this idiom. In 2 Kgs 9:24, we are told that “Jehu filled his hand in the bow.” In other words, Jehu put his strength into the bow to draw it back strongly for a powerful shot aimed at King Joram. Here to fill the hand means to transfer power. This seems to confirm the idea that filling the hand of someone to be priest means to authorize, hence to ordain as priest.
However, the expression can also be used of ordinary people who consecrate themselves in the service of God. David is recorded as using the expression in 1 Chr 29:5 to encourage the people to give freewill offerings to the Lord to be used in the the building of the temple. Here the people are effectively called upon to fill their own hands in the service of God! A similar idea is found in 2 Chr 29:31 where the people fill their hands by joining with Hezekiah in renewing the covenant before God. And finally, the expression can also be used of objects dedicated for the worship of God. The priests in Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple would offer sacrifices to purify and to fill the hand of the altar of the temple (Ezek 43:26).
There is one particular use of this expression that deserves to be mentioned. After the sin of the golden calf, Moses proclaimed: “Whoever is on the Lord’s side, come to me!” (Exod 32:26). When the sons of Levi gathered around him, Moses told them to take their swords and to execute judgment upon the people. He also encouraged them at this time: “Fill your hands today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son and against his brother!” (Exod 32:29). Having understood the logic behind the idiom, Moses’ use of the expression at this juncture surely appears to be a case of deliberate double entendre. The Levites were to consecrate themselves to God by unleashing the power of their hands against their rebellious countrymen.
23 July 2010
When Jesus Became Our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek
Jesus is described in Hebrews as our great high priest, but when did this office commence?
Psalm 110 is important in relation to this question, and v. 4 in particular: “Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” But when did Yahweh historically make this oath?
If anything, the way in which Ps 110:4 is sandwiched by the idea of the Messiah’s enthronement in vv. 1, 5, along with the mention of “the day of your power” in v. 3, suggests that the utterance of the divine oath regarding Christ’s priesthood is linked with his ascension to and enthronement at the right hand of God. Yet I admit that this is not totally clear in the psalm in question.
But there is confirmation of this understanding in the letter to the Hebrews. The author says that Christ did not appoint himself to his priestly office (Heb 5:5). The quotation of Ps 2:7 in Heb 5:5 in juxtaposition with the quotation of Ps 110:4 in Heb 5:6 is important to consider. On the one hand, the wording you are my son is echoed in the voice of God that was heard at Christ’s baptism (e.g., Luke 3:22). On the other hand, Ps 2:7 can be understood as enthronement language. The decree of Ps 2:7 is linked with Yahweh’s establishment of the Messiah as king on Zion (Ps 2:6), which is in response to (see Ps 2:5) a rebellion directed against Yahweh and his Messiah (Ps 2:1-4). It is significant that Ps 2:7 is interpreted by Paul as being fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33).
Did the author of Hebrews also understand Ps 2:7 in this way? The language of Heb 5:9-10 suggests that effectively he did. Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8), “and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” In other words, suffering led to obedience, which in turn led to perfection. The time of the aorist passive participle translated as having been designated in v. 10 seems to match with the aorist passive participle translated as having been made perfect in v. 9. It would make sense that the height of Christ’s suffering and obedience was the time when his perfection was complete. The parallel between perfection and designation suggests, therefore, that Christ’s designation as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek took place more or less at the time when his perfection was complete, when his suffering reached its climax. His being designated as such a high priest meant that he could be the source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. This ties Jesus’ designation as high priest in with the time of his death and resurrection.
In a similar way, Heb 6:20 implies that Jesus became high priest at a certain point in time, which in turn enabled him to be a forerunner into the presence of God “within the veil” (Heb 6:19). Thus, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ appointment as high priest occurred shortly before he ascended into the presence of God in the heavenly temple.
Regarding the typological relation between Jesus and Melchizedek, the lack of biblical information concerning the life and particularly the death of Melchizedek is taken as the main point of comparison with Christ: it is as if Melchizedek has not died and continues on as a priest forever, and this continuation in the office of priest is a picture of what is definitely true for Jesus. Yet it is not as if Christ is an eternal priest in a timeless way; but, having entered into that office at some point in time, he continues on in that office forever. The significance drawn from this typological relationship is that the submission of Abraham to Melchizedek proves the superiority of the priestly order of Melchizedek over against the Levitical priesthood, hence the superiority of the new covenant over the old. In the mind of the author, Melchizedek is not viewed as being an eternal priest in a timeless way, but that at some point in his life he became a priest, and that this office seemingly continues on forever. In a similar way, Heb 7:16 says that Jesus became (literally, has become) a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek. Furthermore, the authority for Jesus becoming a priest was “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). The quotation of Ps 110:4 in the next verse, therefore, ties Jesus’ priesthood in very closely with his resurrection. Jesus was not appointed as high priest on the basis of the Mosaic regulations concerning the priesthood (Heb 7:28), but as a result of the divine oath recorded in Ps 110:4. Significantly, this oath is described as being “after the law,” i.e., it is not recorded as part of the Mosaic revelation recorded in the Pentateuch (Heb 7:28). Presumably the oath recorded in Ps 110:4 is a prophecy of the oath that was formally made by God around the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
It seems, therefore, that Jesus’ death and resurection marks the time when his office of high priest according to the order of Melchizedek formally commenced. This fits in with the idea that the climax of the ordination ceremony of the priest is the sacrifice of the ram of ordination (אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים–the ram of the filling with priestly power and authority) and the sprinking of the priest in its blood (Lev 8:22-30). Jesus’ death on the cross was the climax of his ordination as our great high priest.
Psalm 110 is important in relation to this question, and v. 4 in particular: “Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” But when did Yahweh historically make this oath?
If anything, the way in which Ps 110:4 is sandwiched by the idea of the Messiah’s enthronement in vv. 1, 5, along with the mention of “the day of your power” in v. 3, suggests that the utterance of the divine oath regarding Christ’s priesthood is linked with his ascension to and enthronement at the right hand of God. Yet I admit that this is not totally clear in the psalm in question.
But there is confirmation of this understanding in the letter to the Hebrews. The author says that Christ did not appoint himself to his priestly office (Heb 5:5). The quotation of Ps 2:7 in Heb 5:5 in juxtaposition with the quotation of Ps 110:4 in Heb 5:6 is important to consider. On the one hand, the wording you are my son is echoed in the voice of God that was heard at Christ’s baptism (e.g., Luke 3:22). On the other hand, Ps 2:7 can be understood as enthronement language. The decree of Ps 2:7 is linked with Yahweh’s establishment of the Messiah as king on Zion (Ps 2:6), which is in response to (see Ps 2:5) a rebellion directed against Yahweh and his Messiah (Ps 2:1-4). It is significant that Ps 2:7 is interpreted by Paul as being fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33).
Did the author of Hebrews also understand Ps 2:7 in this way? The language of Heb 5:9-10 suggests that effectively he did. Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8), “and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” In other words, suffering led to obedience, which in turn led to perfection. The time of the aorist passive participle translated as having been designated in v. 10 seems to match with the aorist passive participle translated as having been made perfect in v. 9. It would make sense that the height of Christ’s suffering and obedience was the time when his perfection was complete. The parallel between perfection and designation suggests, therefore, that Christ’s designation as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek took place more or less at the time when his perfection was complete, when his suffering reached its climax. His being designated as such a high priest meant that he could be the source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. This ties Jesus’ designation as high priest in with the time of his death and resurrection.
In a similar way, Heb 6:20 implies that Jesus became high priest at a certain point in time, which in turn enabled him to be a forerunner into the presence of God “within the veil” (Heb 6:19). Thus, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ appointment as high priest occurred shortly before he ascended into the presence of God in the heavenly temple.
Regarding the typological relation between Jesus and Melchizedek, the lack of biblical information concerning the life and particularly the death of Melchizedek is taken as the main point of comparison with Christ: it is as if Melchizedek has not died and continues on as a priest forever, and this continuation in the office of priest is a picture of what is definitely true for Jesus. Yet it is not as if Christ is an eternal priest in a timeless way; but, having entered into that office at some point in time, he continues on in that office forever. The significance drawn from this typological relationship is that the submission of Abraham to Melchizedek proves the superiority of the priestly order of Melchizedek over against the Levitical priesthood, hence the superiority of the new covenant over the old. In the mind of the author, Melchizedek is not viewed as being an eternal priest in a timeless way, but that at some point in his life he became a priest, and that this office seemingly continues on forever. In a similar way, Heb 7:16 says that Jesus became (literally, has become) a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek. Furthermore, the authority for Jesus becoming a priest was “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). The quotation of Ps 110:4 in the next verse, therefore, ties Jesus’ priesthood in very closely with his resurrection. Jesus was not appointed as high priest on the basis of the Mosaic regulations concerning the priesthood (Heb 7:28), but as a result of the divine oath recorded in Ps 110:4. Significantly, this oath is described as being “after the law,” i.e., it is not recorded as part of the Mosaic revelation recorded in the Pentateuch (Heb 7:28). Presumably the oath recorded in Ps 110:4 is a prophecy of the oath that was formally made by God around the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
It seems, therefore, that Jesus’ death and resurection marks the time when his office of high priest according to the order of Melchizedek formally commenced. This fits in with the idea that the climax of the ordination ceremony of the priest is the sacrifice of the ram of ordination (אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים–the ram of the filling with priestly power and authority) and the sprinking of the priest in its blood (Lev 8:22-30). Jesus’ death on the cross was the climax of his ordination as our great high priest.
17 July 2010
The Concept of the Eternal Covenant in the Old Testament
Following on from my post entitled “The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews”, it should also be noted that the language of an eternal covenant is not just limited to Hebrews. The phrase ברית עולם an everlasting covenant appears a number of times in the Old Testament, and there are other verses where the words ברית and עולם are closely related.
The relevant verses are: Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; 25:13; Jdg 2:1; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17.
I will endeavor to investigate these verses over the next few weeks or so.
The relevant verses are: Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; 25:13; Jdg 2:1; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17.
I will endeavor to investigate these verses over the next few weeks or so.
16 July 2010
The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews
I have been asked about how we should understand the eternal nature of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20. The connection between this verse and Bullinger’s language of “the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God” is intriguing. His idea seems to be that there is one covenant that is eternal in the sense that it began with Adam and continues on forever, and this is one way of understanding the idea of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20.
It is correct to speak of one covenant relationship that God has had with his people since the time of Adam, but the purpose of the author of Hebrews is actually to distinguish the Mosaic administration of this covenant relationship from the post-cross administration of this covenant relationship. The author argues: if the revelation given to Moses and the prophets was special (Heb 1:1; 2:2), then how much more so the word given to the Son of God himself (Heb 1:2; 2:3)! There is continuity, but also discontinuity in the sense that a greater revelation has been revealed, which must take priority, to which we must be committed, and from which we must not turn back.
So, in speaking of an eternal covenant, the author of Hebrews means the new covenant, which he contrasts with the old covenant. Jesus is the guarantor and mediator of a covenant that is “better” than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6). Jesus’ ongoing life means that he exercises an eternal priesthood, and this underpins this better covenant (Heb 7:24). Jesus’ mediatorship is linked with his death, which opened the way for the called to receive an eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15). This inheritance is not eternal in the sense of being timeless, but it is eternal in the sense that it continues on for eternity from a particular point in the past. The context suggests that this point is the time of Jesus’ death, when the new covenant was inaugurated.
It is clear that the author of Hebrews views the new covenant as beginning formally at the point of Jesus’ death. A covenant is made valid, i.e., it comes into effect, through the death (usually symbolic) of the one who made it (Heb 9:17). In relation to the Mosaic covenant, the necessary death was symbolized through the shedding of sacrificial blood (Heb 9:17-21). But the new covenant was established through the literal death of the one who made it. His death was a “better” sacrifice, which has opened the way to enter into heaven itself, not just into the tabernacle/temple, which was the Mosaic copy of this awesome place (Heb 9:23-26).
It is also interesting to consider how the author of Hebrews uses the word αἰώνιος, which is usually translated as eternal. In Hebrews, it usually designates continuation into the future rather than something that is timeless. Eternal salvation in Heb 5:9 refers to the salvation that results from obeying Jesus. It is an eschatological concept that continues on forever. The timeframe of eternal judgment in Heb 6:2, eternal redemption in Heb 9:12, and the promised eternal inheritance in Heb 9:15 are similar. The eternal redemption was only secured “by means of his blood” (Heb 9:12). Even though the effects of Jesus’ sacrifice applied to the old covenant saints, the redemption obtained by this means did not really begin until Jesus secured it through his death on the cross. In a similar way, the idea of the eternal inheritance being promised means that it did not exist in consummate reality from the beginning. The called only receive the eternal inheritance promised to them through the death of Jesus which redeems them from the sins committed under the first, i.e., the Mosaic, covenant (Heb 9:15). The only time when αἰώνιος is used in Hebrews to denote the idea of a timeless existence is in Heb 9:14, where the Holy Spirit is described as the eternal Spirit.
All in all, according the manner in which the writer of Hebrews uses his language, the eternal covenant is the new covenant in Christ. It is eternal in the sense that from the point of inauguration at the cross, it endures forever. More theologically we could speak of how this “eternal” covenant has been the foundation for God’s unitary covenant relationship with his people ever since Adam was kicked out of the garden, but this is to delve into an area that is beyond the purview of this particular epistle.
As the writer puts it: Once upon a time God’s people only knew Sinai;
The sprinkled blood that is better than the blood of innocent Abel has inaugurated the better and eternal covenant, namely, the new covenant in Christ.
It is correct to speak of one covenant relationship that God has had with his people since the time of Adam, but the purpose of the author of Hebrews is actually to distinguish the Mosaic administration of this covenant relationship from the post-cross administration of this covenant relationship. The author argues: if the revelation given to Moses and the prophets was special (Heb 1:1; 2:2), then how much more so the word given to the Son of God himself (Heb 1:2; 2:3)! There is continuity, but also discontinuity in the sense that a greater revelation has been revealed, which must take priority, to which we must be committed, and from which we must not turn back.
So, in speaking of an eternal covenant, the author of Hebrews means the new covenant, which he contrasts with the old covenant. Jesus is the guarantor and mediator of a covenant that is “better” than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6). Jesus’ ongoing life means that he exercises an eternal priesthood, and this underpins this better covenant (Heb 7:24). Jesus’ mediatorship is linked with his death, which opened the way for the called to receive an eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15). This inheritance is not eternal in the sense of being timeless, but it is eternal in the sense that it continues on for eternity from a particular point in the past. The context suggests that this point is the time of Jesus’ death, when the new covenant was inaugurated.
It is clear that the author of Hebrews views the new covenant as beginning formally at the point of Jesus’ death. A covenant is made valid, i.e., it comes into effect, through the death (usually symbolic) of the one who made it (Heb 9:17). In relation to the Mosaic covenant, the necessary death was symbolized through the shedding of sacrificial blood (Heb 9:17-21). But the new covenant was established through the literal death of the one who made it. His death was a “better” sacrifice, which has opened the way to enter into heaven itself, not just into the tabernacle/temple, which was the Mosaic copy of this awesome place (Heb 9:23-26).
It is also interesting to consider how the author of Hebrews uses the word αἰώνιος, which is usually translated as eternal. In Hebrews, it usually designates continuation into the future rather than something that is timeless. Eternal salvation in Heb 5:9 refers to the salvation that results from obeying Jesus. It is an eschatological concept that continues on forever. The timeframe of eternal judgment in Heb 6:2, eternal redemption in Heb 9:12, and the promised eternal inheritance in Heb 9:15 are similar. The eternal redemption was only secured “by means of his blood” (Heb 9:12). Even though the effects of Jesus’ sacrifice applied to the old covenant saints, the redemption obtained by this means did not really begin until Jesus secured it through his death on the cross. In a similar way, the idea of the eternal inheritance being promised means that it did not exist in consummate reality from the beginning. The called only receive the eternal inheritance promised to them through the death of Jesus which redeems them from the sins committed under the first, i.e., the Mosaic, covenant (Heb 9:15). The only time when αἰώνιος is used in Hebrews to denote the idea of a timeless existence is in Heb 9:14, where the Holy Spirit is described as the eternal Spirit.
All in all, according the manner in which the writer of Hebrews uses his language, the eternal covenant is the new covenant in Christ. It is eternal in the sense that from the point of inauguration at the cross, it endures forever. More theologically we could speak of how this “eternal” covenant has been the foundation for God’s unitary covenant relationship with his people ever since Adam was kicked out of the garden, but this is to delve into an area that is beyond the purview of this particular epistle.
As the writer puts it: Once upon a time God’s people only knew Sinai;
but [now] you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:22-24)!
The sprinkled blood that is better than the blood of innocent Abel has inaugurated the better and eternal covenant, namely, the new covenant in Christ.
09 July 2010
The Importance of the Concept of Covenant in Biblical Hermeneutics
The concept of covenant is very important for coming to an accurate understanding of the message of the Bible. The Bible has developed as the written record of God’s relationship with his people through history. The Old Testament is the written testimony to God’s relationship with Israel based on the Sinaitic covenant, also known as the old covenant. The Old Testament is simply old covenant revelation, and the covenant theology of this revelation is the theological foundation upon which the New Testament is built.
It is significant that the New Testament teaches that Christians, in a manner similar to the people of Israel, are in a covenant relationship with God. Jesus came to establish the new covenant, and Jesus’ disciples participate in the blood of the covenant (Luke 22:14–20). Paul viewed himself as being a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Paul says that non-Jewish Christians were once “strangers to the covenants of promise,” but have now been brought near in Christ (Eph 2:12–13). The writer of Hebrews teaches that Christians are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29); and have come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24). Christians, therefore, relate to God on the basis of a covenant. This covenant, however, is not the Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant, but the new covenant in Christ.
The new covenant exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as the old covenant, but the key difference between the old and new covenants is the medium of revelation. Under the old covenant, the medium of revelation was, first and foremostly, Moses; but with the coming of Jesus Christ (who is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Deut 18:15, 19 concerning the second and greater Moses) a new revelation has been given. Because Christ is the second and greater Moses, the revelation mediated through Jesus (and his apostles) takes priority.
Understanding the covenant structure of Old and New Testament revelation, and how the old and new covenants relate together, is of great importance in interpreting the overall meaning of the Bible. In fact, from a Christian point of view, if it is acknowledged that the new covenant is built upon the foundation of the old covenant and exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as those already established in the old, it follows that having a good understanding of the old covenant can greatly assist us in understanding the nature of the new covenant and what it means to be a Christian. Indeed, it can be argued that a deficient understanding of the nature of the old covenant tends to go hand in hand with a deficient understanding of the new covenant. If the Old Testament describes the basic human problem, then it makes sense to conclude that the more we understand the problem, the more we can understand and appreciate the solution that is provided through the new covenant in Christ. It is important, therefore, to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the old covenant and its purposes in God’s plan of salvation history. Doing so will greatly elucidate our understanding of the gospel.
It is significant that the New Testament teaches that Christians, in a manner similar to the people of Israel, are in a covenant relationship with God. Jesus came to establish the new covenant, and Jesus’ disciples participate in the blood of the covenant (Luke 22:14–20). Paul viewed himself as being a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Paul says that non-Jewish Christians were once “strangers to the covenants of promise,” but have now been brought near in Christ (Eph 2:12–13). The writer of Hebrews teaches that Christians are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29); and have come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24). Christians, therefore, relate to God on the basis of a covenant. This covenant, however, is not the Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant, but the new covenant in Christ.
The new covenant exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as the old covenant, but the key difference between the old and new covenants is the medium of revelation. Under the old covenant, the medium of revelation was, first and foremostly, Moses; but with the coming of Jesus Christ (who is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Deut 18:15, 19 concerning the second and greater Moses) a new revelation has been given. Because Christ is the second and greater Moses, the revelation mediated through Jesus (and his apostles) takes priority.
Understanding the covenant structure of Old and New Testament revelation, and how the old and new covenants relate together, is of great importance in interpreting the overall meaning of the Bible. In fact, from a Christian point of view, if it is acknowledged that the new covenant is built upon the foundation of the old covenant and exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as those already established in the old, it follows that having a good understanding of the old covenant can greatly assist us in understanding the nature of the new covenant and what it means to be a Christian. Indeed, it can be argued that a deficient understanding of the nature of the old covenant tends to go hand in hand with a deficient understanding of the new covenant. If the Old Testament describes the basic human problem, then it makes sense to conclude that the more we understand the problem, the more we can understand and appreciate the solution that is provided through the new covenant in Christ. It is important, therefore, to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the old covenant and its purposes in God’s plan of salvation history. Doing so will greatly elucidate our understanding of the gospel.
01 July 2010
The Gospel as Eschatological Torah
Luke-Acts records Jesus as teaching that Jerusalem would be the starting point from which the preaching of the gospel would emanate. In Luke 24:46-47 Jesus tells his disciples that “it is written … that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” This idea is also reflected in Acts 1:8 when Jesus says that his disciples will be his witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The starting point for the preaching of the gospel of the risen Christ is Jerusalem. But where in particular is this written in the Old Testament Scriptures?
The answer seems to be … in Isa 2:2-3.
The intertextuality between Isa 2:2-3 and Luke 24:46-47 shows that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah finds its fulfillment in the gospel!
The answer seems to be … in Isa 2:2-3.
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.
The intertextuality between Isa 2:2-3 and Luke 24:46-47 shows that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah finds its fulfillment in the gospel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)